(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5755) RE: Units of measure

Lionel, Steve steve.lionel
Wed Jul 6 12:35:23 EDT 2016

Van presented his proposal as a tutorial to us at Delft - my notes don't
show that we took any kind of vote on it, but there was certainly no
enthusiasm for it among the rest of the committee. My own recollection was
that I didn't like the particular proposal, that it felt "too F77-like" and
I didn't think it would solve the stated problem, but I don't remember

I think we have spent far too much time over many meetings (and email
chains) revisiting "Units of measure" and that nothing more should be done
on it, especially turning it into a TS. Frankly, I am tired of this and the
repeated attempts to resurrect it make me feel even more negative towards
it. Put a stake in it and move on.


-----Original Message-----
From: j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org
[mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of David Muxworthy
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 11:26 AM
To: WG5 <sc22wg5 at open-std.org>
Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5754) Units of measure

> there is nothing in the minutes re altering the objectives of a TS. My
recollection is that there was no enthusiasm for the idea,

I accept that decision, but I have no recollection of it being made (Delft
or London?).

> I would like to complete this within a week, i.e., by 12 July. If you are
one of those that voted against the proposal and think that the current
draft does not represent your view accurately, please suggest changes before
12 July.

It would add weight to the penultimate paragraph to say that there was also
a country vote in Delft which went 0 - 3 - 3.


J3 mailing list
J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6616 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20160706/b0d97257/attachment-0001.bin 

More information about the J3 mailing list