From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Mar 14 16:31:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 7F7CE3569AD; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:31:12 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.54]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C274C35698D for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:31:10 +0100 (CET) X-Trace: 737615997/mk-filter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/88.104.244.20/None/d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 88.104.244.20 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAFu5YE9YaPQU/2dsb2JhbAAMN7k1BwEBAQMBOiwYCwtGV4VhB4I2rBGQM41cgj9jBJsuilCCZg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,584,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="737615997" Received: from 88-104-244-20.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([88.104.244.20]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2012 15:30:59 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.4642) Part 2 of the standard From: David Muxworthy In-Reply-To: <20120314122844.9A5959DB118@www.open-std.org> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:30:47 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <75108A00-A158-4A38-B678-BDEB264BB943@bcs.org.uk> References: <20120313200407.EBAB39DB112@www.open-std.org> <20120314115650.BE9429DB112@www.open-std.org> <20120314122844.9A5959DB118@www.open-std.org> To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On 14 Mar 2012, Bill Long wrote: >> The review also showed that a surprising number of countries (7) have = national standards identical to the ISO one and five answered 'yes' to: = "Is this International Standard used in your country without national = adoption or are products used in your country based on this standard?". > It is likely that these "yes" answers were uninformed.=20 That's a bit insulting to the standards people in Canada and France. =20 > I agree with Nick's comment that the focus of John's task was to = determine whether additional intrinsics should be considered for Part 1. If you say so. My understanding was that the whole thrust of the = discussion was to find a reason to withdraw part 2, so that's what went = into the minutes and resolutions. Given the relative priorities of = current projects and given the SC22 decision made since the Garching = meeting, WG5 could put this one on the back burner. David