[J3] 18-156

[Steve Lionel]

On 2/27/2018 2:28 PM, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) via J3 wrote:
> But aside from that point, I would be curious what other reasons the committee had for [not] tossing it into that ?approved-but-irrelevant? category?

See WG5 document N2112 for WG5's formal response on this topic. My 
recollection from the Delft meeting where this was discussed in detail is:

  * Nothing is zero-cost, even creating a TS that won't get implemented
  * The specific proposal, in my view, tore large holes in the language
    and felt more like something from F77
  * It wouldn't have helped the use case put forward (Mars orbiter) for
    the reason you (Tom) cited earlier. Furthermore, the units
    discrepancy was only one of? several factors in the mission loss,
    according to the official report.

I want us to stop wasting cycles rehashing this. It's not going to help 
and just distracts us from our business.

Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3_mailman.j3-fortran.org/attachments/20180227/87bb210f/attachment.html>