P1076 March 2, 2017 Meeting Minutes

Attendees:

• Rob Gaddi, Jim Lewis, Peter Flake, Lieven Lemiengre, Brent Hayhoe, Kevin Jennings, Patrick Lehmann, Jing Pang

Agenda:

Meeting Discussion

• Target goal finish LCS's by review by March 1 (ie: ASAP)
• Work through list of LCS's to approve.
• Approve LCS:
  • LCS-2016-036a
  • LCS-2016-075
  • LCS-2016-I13
  • LCS-2016-019
• Discussion LCS:
  • LCS-2016-002b Approved. Need to edit final version
  • LCS-2016-018 Approved.
• Actions
  • LCS-2016-043 -- Need input on when PSL updates. Postponed?
  • LCS-2016-I03 -- Need vendor input on complexity of signatures on formal generic subprograms
  • AI Rob: LCS_2016_26 -- Just do 64 bit integers and abandon any notion of 32 bits.
    • Should the language allow user defined integer sizes larger than universal? Type LL_INTEGER is range 0 to 2**1024 ;
      • Yes, but not this revision.
  • LCS-2016-061 - minor updates to BNF
  • WRT LCS 059,049,
    • function f (a : in subtype of integer) ret: return byte;
      • ?return'subtype? ret'subtype
  • LCS 072 - getting return value subtype information
  • LCS 072a
    • Declared objects -
    • Literal - value
    • expression == constant - based on the value
  • LCS 045
    • Patrick and Lieven objected to arrays
    • Reviewed issues
    • AI LCS 045c - do conjugated
  • LCS 018
    • Remove 'POS_RANGE 'POS_REVERSE_RANGE
• Removed and/or forwarded to next revision
  • LCS-2016-063
  • LCS-2016-014b
  • LCS-2016-026a
  • LCS-2016-026b

Review and Approve Meeting Minutes and Decisions by Attendees

Rob, Lieven, Patrick, All

Review and Approve Meeting Minutes and Decisions by non-attendees

Kevin Jennings: Do not agree. Per the recording of the meeting, the discussion of LCS-2016-018 did not reach consensus. Two times the chair called for a vote on this LCS and both times the chair was the only person who indicated support for the LCS followed by someone else interjecting for additional discussion. Both times that discussion then drifted off to discussion of LCS-2016-072 and -072a. I believe the reason for this drift is because without -072 and -072a there is no new use case for -018 which brings into question why -018 should be approved at all. I suggest bringing -018 back for formal voting and consensus with the knowledge that the chair has stated that he does not intend to allow 72/72a to be approved thereby removing the only use case for -018.

TBD

Next Meeting: Thursday March 9, 2017, 9:00 am Pacific

Previous Meeting: Thursday February 23, 2017