[J3] 18-156

[Clune, Thomas L. GSFC-6101]

Van,

How many vendors do you expect to implement this feature without any promise that it will be integrated into a specific future version of the standard?      My estimate is the same number that would implement it without the TS.    This would seem to be a pyrrhic victory at best if you got your way.

But aside from that point, I would be curious what other reasons the committee had for tossing it into that ?approved-but-irrelevant? category?  

- Tom



> On Feb 27, 2018, at 1:23 PM, Van Snyder via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 15:12 +0000, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) wrote:
>> I too am not opposed to units per se, but it?s not so high on my list
>> of priorities. 
> 
> The current draft of the units proposal, indeed every draft, was a TS,
> not a work item proposal.  Unlike every previous TS, for several drafts,
> a promise that it will be integrated into the next standard is not
> included.  Instead it includes words copied from a C TS that explicitly
> say it might never be incorporated into any standard.
> 
> It has no bearing whatsoever on the schedule or work load for the next
> standard.  That's what's baffling about the resistance to letting ISO
> publish it.
> 
> A TS is supposed to have a separate schedule that does not impact the
> primary development schedule.
> 
> Yeah, we spent a lot of time in plenary and subgroup on the last two
> TS's because they weren't ready to go when they were "ready to go."  The
> first three were produced offline, and then incorporated into the
> standard when they were actually ready.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3_mailman.j3-fortran.org