(j3.2006) Not blaming WG23

[Cohen Malcolm]

I think "several complete days" could be a slight exaggeration, 
understandable since it always seems longer when one is doing something one 
does not want to do.

In any case, my opinion is that the time we spent was commeasurate with the 
value of the exercise.

My opinion is also that taking seriously the purpose of the standard, which 
includes "portability, reliability, and maintainability", warrants 
continuing liaison with WG23 activities (and thus appearance on the agenda) 
while they continue.

Cheers,

-----Original Message----- 
From: Van Snyder
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 3:54 AM
To: j3
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5746) Units of measure

On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:46 +0000, Bill Long wrote:
> I don?t think blaming WG23 is fair.  The committee as a whole did not
> spend that much time on WG23 activity.

/DATA spent several complete days over the course of two meetings
proofreading and revising the draft.  Maybe the other subgroups weren't
as diligent.  It has appeared on the agenda for eight years.  That's
enough.



_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star.
________________________________________________________________________

-- 
........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.