(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5770) RE: RE: Other languages with unit support

[Van Snyder]

On Sun, 2016-07-10 at 20:51 +0000, Whitlock, Stan wrote:
> The draft TS proposal now in N2113 includes the words from C++ TSs
> that say "this was never part of a standard and might not ever be part
> of a standard."  Let's publish it, so that preprocessors can at least
> say "My product conforms to the TS."
> 
> Stan> Are you kidding?  N2113 has not been vetted, edits haven't been
> checked, it is in no way ready for publication as a TS supported by
> WG5 even if it never goes into the standard.  And the committee keeps
> telling you that it doesn't want to do this work.  If you want to
> publish its contents as a paper in, say, The Fortran Forum, then all
> these preprocessors will have something to which they can conform.
> End Stan> 

So how about publishing it without edits?  A quasi-standard for a
preprocessor wouldn't need edits to the standard.  Or with a caveat that
says "These edits have not been checked rigorously, and they apply to
Fortran 2008, not Fortran 2015?"

N2113 is the nineteenth edition of this proposal, in its present form.
This doesn't count my informal proposal to X3J3 in 1986, or the formal
one that was not spelt out in as much detail in 2004.  Eighteen previous
ones have either been WG5 or J3 papers, or some member(s) of one of the
committees commented informally on an earlier draft that wasn't a formal
paper.  Isn't that what "A TS has an independent schedule" means?

Nobody has commented on its technical content since Malcolm suggested to
replace rational-arithmetic exponents in composite unit definitions with
a RATIONAL_POWER intrinsic function.  I perhaps naively assumed that
meant nobody had a comment on the technical content.