(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5749) Units of measure

[David Muxworthy]

On 3 Jul 2016, John Reid wrote:

> Yes, we could have written it this way, but when proposing it as
> a TS work item, we would have had to say that we intended to
> include it in a future standard.

This is not how the C++ people are working.  They have published six
TSs in the last 12 months (18822, 19217, 19568, 19570, 19571 and
19841), most of which have words similar to:

"This Technical Specification is non-normative. Some of the
functionality described by this Technical Specification may be
considered for standardization in a future version of C++, but it is
not currently part of any C++ standard. Some of the functionality in
this Technical Specification may never be standardized, and other
functionality may be standardized in a substantially changed form.

The goal of this Technical Specification is to build widespread
existing practice for Transactional Memory. It gives advice on
extensions to those vendors who wish to provide them."

Despite what has been said in this thread, one way ahead for WG5
would be to add similar weasel words to N1969, push it forward as a
TS and see how much interest it attracts.  

David