From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sun Jul 3 20:17:06 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 C66C73587BD; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 20:17:06 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (smtp.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.105]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2A93571C2 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 20:16:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id u63IGt7p007583 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128 bits) verified NO); Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:16:56 -0700 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5743) Units of measure From: Van Snyder Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov To: fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: sc22wg5 In-Reply-To: <16B77158-ACBF-49E8-A4DD-1E04A7C59B59@nasa.gov> 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> <16B77158-ACBF-49E8-A4DD-1E04A7C59B59@nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Organization: Yes Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:16:55 -0700 Message-ID: <1467569815.11729.1.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-36.el6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-Sender: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2016-07-03 at 11:30 -0400, Tom Clune wrote: > a shorter cycle would provide the greatest opportunity to ensure that > the priority list is optimized across the Fortran community and > implemented in time to make corrections in the subsequent standard. I was expecting a shorter cycle after 2008, but we spent several years on WG23 nonsense. We delayed gathering new features for three years, and then did it in a helter-skelter manner that was nothing like the organized way we did it in 2004. Can we not do that again?