(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5736) Units of measure

[Bill Long]

On Jun 29, 2016, at 6:20 AM, John Reid <John.Reid at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:

> WG5,
> 
> Here is a slightly changed draft N2112. A diff file is attached.
> 
> Van asks
> 
> 1. Was the sentiment expressed in the penultimate paragraph that of a significant fraction of those you asked for their reasons for opposing the project?
> 
> 2. Did you ask whether my offer to remove the promise to incorporate the
> specification into a future revision of the standard made a difference
> in their positions?
> 
> For all those that attended the London meeting, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
> 
> I think I should perhaps add a paragraph on 2. I think the sentiment was that it would obviate the whole point of a TS - to define a feature that WG5 intended eventually to include in the standard.
> 

I agree with John that this is the operational norm for WG5 and making an exception here weakens the norm for other proposals. 

An additional motivation for a TS is to provide purchase agents with a document to cite in writing a proposal that has the effect of forcing vendors to implement this, independent of whether it will ever be part of the base standard. Even if only one entity is interested in the feature, if its budget is sufficient it has the effect of forcing all vendors.  Avoiding this situation is a high priority.  The implementation costs greatly outweigh the benefit in this case, and vendors are not awash with free resources for such a project. 

Cheers,
Bill


> Cheers,
> 
> John.
> 
> 
> John Reid wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I was required by the London meeting to provide a document describing
>> the reasons why WG5 did not apply for a new project to develop a TS on
>> Units of Measure in Fortran when requested to do so at its 2013 meeting.
>> 
>> Here is a draft. I would like to thank Dan for writing a first draft at
>> the Boulder meeting. This was shown to Van and the subgroup heads and
>> their comments were taken into account.
>> 
>> The obvious reason for the decision was that 7 people voted "no". This
>> paper has to explore why they voted so. Have I got this right? Comments,
>> please.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> John.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> J3 mailing list
>> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
>> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>> 
> <diff.txt><N2112-2.txt>_______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

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