[J3] 18-156

[Clune, Thomas L. GSFC-6101]

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Bill Long via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify, what Van is calling a ?TS? has nothing to do with an ISO Technical Specification, which is also called a TS.  An ISO TS requires WG5 approval,  SC22 approval, and assignment of an official editor by ISO. What Van is talking about is a document he wrote on his own that had the visual appearance of a TS, but was not in any way approved or official. 
> 

Thank you for the background/clarification.

> Tom makes a relevant point about vendors.  One of the purposes of a TS is to allow vendors a head start on implementing a feature.  Vendors have uniformly made it clear that there was no interest in implementing his pet project.  One of the various reasons why this has never gotten any approval from the committee. 

> 
> I?m not sure where the ?approved-but-irrelevant? category comes from.  UNITS have never been approved by anyone outside Van?s imagination. 

Sorry - I was multitasking and my wording was far from clear.   I meant:  even _if_ the committee had approved the (non-ISO) TS, it would have been in the ?approved-but-irrelevant? category.   And that alone may (likely) be enough reason not to approve it in that manner.    My question was whether there were any additional reasons not to use that particular (non-ISO) path, given that it appears to have no obligation on the part of the committee or the vendors.      This question was meant to be _separate_ from the reasons for/against a more conventional approach for including units as a language feature.

- Tom




> 
> Cheers,
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 27, 2018, at 1:28 PM, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> J3 mailing list
>> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
>> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3_mailman.j3-fortran.org
> 
> Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
> Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support &   voice:  651-605-9024
> Bioinformatics Software Development                      fax:  651-605-9143
> Cray Inc./ 2131 Lindau Lane/  Suite 1000/  Bloomington, MN  55425
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3_mailman.j3-fortran.org