From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Jul  5 20:53:38 2016
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 51A7835877F; Tue,  5 Jul 2016 20:53:38 +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 CAE1F358343
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue,  5 Jul 2016 20:53:35 +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 u65IrVPZ028351
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128 bits) verified NO)
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:53:32 -0700
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5749) Units of measure
From: Van Snyder <Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160705153207.E49A9358343@www.open-std.org>
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>
	 <20160703085848.B63663584A2@www.open-std.org>
	 <20160705153207.E49A9358343@www.open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Organization: Yes
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 11:53:31 -0700
Message-ID: <1467744811.11729.24.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 Tue, 2016-07-05 at 16:31 +0100, David Muxworthy wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2016, John Reid wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> This is not how the C++ people are working.  They have published six
> TSs in the last 12 months (18822, 19217, 19568, 19570, 19571 and
> 19841), most of which have words similar to:
> 
> "This Technical Specification is non-normative. Some of the
> functionality described by this Technical Specification may be
> considered for standardization in a future version of C++, but it is
> not currently part of any C++ standard. Some of the functionality in
> this Technical Specification may never be standardized, and other
> functionality may be standardized in a substantially changed form.

I shall propose the units TS again with this wording.  I believe it is
valuable to preserve this work, in case anybody else ever realizes that
reliability is actually important.

> The goal of this Technical Specification is to build widespread
> existing practice for Transactional Memory. It gives advice on
> extensions to those vendors who wish to provide them."
> 
> Despite what has been said in this thread, one way ahead for WG5
> would be to add similar weasel words to N1969, push it forward as a
> TS and see how much interest it attracts.  
> 
> David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3