From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sun Jul 3 10:58:48 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 565069DB15D; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:58:48 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from smtp-out-1.tiscali.co.uk (smtp-out-1.tiscali.co.uk [62.24.135.129]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 905D3356F40 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:58:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] ([212.139.77.201]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP id JdEgbmEEPU65lJdEhb31lC; Sun, 03 Jul 2016 09:58:43 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [212.139.77.201] Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5743) Units of measure To: sc22wg5 References: <20160619135920.D0F3F358287@www.open-std.org> <20160629112043.BF09F3587AF@www.open-std.org> <20160629123517.185A635828D@www.open-std.org> <20160629190123.72A8035859B@www.open-std.org> <20160702105054.18596358745@www.open-std.org> <20160702202059.B9618358745@www.open-std.org> From: John Reid Message-ID: <5778D3BB.3030201@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 09:58:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160702202059.B9618358745@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfHVtu3n4dSaoKIZDamwG2mIyestLle8/t6oVgynZqx9X9osKI+rWyq5wm2CD+vOVXLQ2UYxvG4gyVe0l1iL44iomfk1O7aFnJModoHdUwY5vkrONY/Ie ZHj8Ju3GCWbwA1R+T8iHsqt64Yr8PJJE07x7breSTbZWWeNF5yby9Sp135Zam50WTKbHiQI43oa3JbRRJNyM9V+zkMLQcMy9Nx8= Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Van Snyder wrote: > I don't understand how the paragraph quoted from the ISO directives > precludes the possibility of publishing a TS that does not promise to > incorporate the feature in a future standard. Not promising to > incorporate is not the same as promising not to incorporate. Yes, we could have written it this way, but when proposing it as a TS work item, we would have had to say that we intended to include it in a future standard. Cheers, John. > > Bill and others have argued that units support ought to be provided by a > preprocessor, no matter how unpalatable that is, especially if one has > several users and several developers of the software. If a TS were > published, at least preprocessor vendors could claim compliance to that, > and would hopefully all provide the same features, in the same way. > > I also don't understand the argument that we shouldn't be ambitious > because vendors found some features of 2003 difficult to implement. If > we had postponed incorporating them until 2015, nobody would have given > any thought to how to implement them until now, and they would thereby > not be available until 2025. I don't see any advantage in that. > Indeed, it seems to be a distinct disadvantage. I'm very pleased that > 2003 features are becoming available now, instead of appearing ten years > after my retirement. > > I've spend my entire half-century career working in an organization > whose motto is "Dare Mighty Things" so perhaps I can be forgiven for > having more ambitions for Fortran than other members seem to have. > > Reliability is extremely important to my organization. We built two > machines that have operated unattended in the harsh deep-space > environment for forty years, and show all signs of lasting at least > another decade. We promised NASA that the Spirit and Opportunity rovers > would last ninety days on Mars. Opportunity is still working twelve > years after landing. The Spirit rover lasted "only" six years. > Reliability doesn't come without great effort, and every tool to improve > it is welcome. Is reliability not important to anybody else, or is > everybody who cares about it eager to achieve it without the best tools > possible? > > JPL is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, operated by > Caltech. Unlike at least a few government civil-service organizations, > JPL and Caltech are very careful with taxpayers' money, so labor cost is > important to us. Reliability doesn't come for free, and every tool that > helps to reduce the cost of achieving it is welcome. Is labor cost not > important to anybody else? > > On Sat, 2016-07-02 at 11:50 +0100, John Reid wrote: >> WG5, >> >> N.M. Maclaren wrote: >>> 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. >> >> We have to work within the ISO/IEC JTC 1 rules. The latest directives say >> >> "When the subject in question is still under development or where for >> any other reason there is the future but not immediate possibility of an >> agreement to publish an International Standard, the technical committee >> or subcommittee may decide, by following the procedure set out in 2.3, >> that the publication of a Technical Specification would be appropriate." >> >> I have added a paragraph that includes this quotation at the end. I have >> also split the first paragraph to add a sentence explaining that this >> was proposed as a TS. >> >> Does this document now give a fair summary of why we made the decision >> in London? >> >> John. >> _______________________________________________ >> J3 mailing list >> J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org >> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 > > > _______________________________________________ > J3 mailing list > J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org > http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 >