(j3.2006) [Re: Spreadsheet from meeting 167]

[Bill Long]

On 11/7/12 11:20 AM, Keith Bierman wrote:
> Not having been involved in these rounds, I can't and won't comment on
> what may or may not have happened in the meetings.
>
> Dredging up old history, may be slightly educational. For many years
> there was nearly total agreement that a "bit" datatype would be a
> GoodThing. However, it got on and off the work list many times due to
> the underlying disagreement about what kind of "bit" we wanted.  The net
> result was a signigicant waste of scarce committee and subgroup time,
> AND nothing to show for it for a  very long time.
>

Actually a BITS data type did come back again for F2008, after you left 
the committee (no correlation, I assume), and we got to the point of 
having the edits incorporated into the standard.  Then WG5 reconsidered 
and the whole feature was backed out.  At least if it comes up again, we 
have the edits basically done, so it would be straightforward to add it 
back. (Though still a substantial vendor implementation effort, which 
was a major motivation behind removing the feature.)

Cheers,
Bill

-- 
Bill Long                                           longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support    &                 voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development            fax:   651-605-9142
Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101