[J3] 18-156

[Van Snyder]

On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 20:41 +0000, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) via J3
wrote:
> 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.

Steve suggested I submit it for publication in Fortran Forum.  Ian said
it was too big.  Steve mumbled something about "maybe they have a size
limit" and then wandered away.

Any other venues?  Bueller?  Bueller?

> 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.

I have been asking this question since the London meeting, but no
explanation has been forthcoming.

> This question was meant to be _separate_ from the reasons for/against
> a more conventional approach for including units as a language
> feature.

It has not been proposed as a work item since 2004.  When it was pushed
off the priority list at 168, I was urged to develop a TR.  Now that I
have a draft, people are asking "Why are you bothering with that?  We'll
never let ISO publish it."