From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Jun 29 21:01:22 2016 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 E03E5358793; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:01:22 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34005356D1D for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:01:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:56779) by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1bIKjb-000Qym-8O (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path ); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:01:15 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1bIKjb-0003xH-Hs (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:01:15 +0100 Received: from [87.113.48.171] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 29 Jun 2016 20:01:15 +0100 Date: 29 Jun 2016 20:01:15 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: Bill Long Cc: fortran standards email list for J3 , WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5737) (j3.2006) Units of measure Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20160629123517.185A635828D@www.open-std.org> References: <20160619135920.D0F3F358287@www.open-std.org> <20160629112043.BF09F3587AF@www.open-std.org> <20160629123517.185A635828D@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Jun 29 2016, Bill Long wrote: >> >> Van asks >> >> 2. Did you ask whether my offer to remove the promise to incorporate the >> specification into a future revision of the standard made a difference >> in their positions? >> >> For all those that attended the London meeting, I would appreciate your >> thoughts on this. >> >> I think I should perhaps add a paragraph on 2. I think the sentiment >> was that it would obviate the whole point of a TS - to define a feature >> that WG5 intended eventually to include in the standard. > > I agree with John that this is the operational norm for WG5 and making an > exception here weakens the norm for other proposals. While that is true, there were people who felt that using TSs solely for that purpose was a mistake. > An additional motivation for a TS is to provide purchase agents with a > document to cite in writing a proposal that has the effect of forcing > vendors to implement this, independent of whether it will ever be part of > the base standard. Even if only one entity is interested in the feature, > if its budget is sufficient it has the effect of forcing all vendors. > Avoiding this situation is a high priority. The implementation costs > greatly outweigh the benefit in this case, and vendors are not awash with > free resources for such a project. Again, there were people who disagreed with that. Regards, Nick.