From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Feb 28 16:28:33 2017 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 153CB35885D; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:28:33 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 373 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:28:32 CET Received: from rgout04.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (rgout0406.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk [65.20.0.219]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CDD0356DC3 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:28:31 +0100 (CET) X-OWM-Source-IP: 31.49.153.66 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: d.t.muxworthy@btinternet.com X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=8/50,refid=2.7.2:2017.2.25.100617:17:8.707,ip=,rules=NO_URI_FOUND, NO_CTA_URI_FOUND, NO_MESSAGE_ID, NO_URI_HTTPS, TO_MALFORMED Received: from davids-imac.home (31.49.153.66) by rgout04.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (9.0.019.13-1) (authenticated as d.t.muxworthy@btinternet.com) id 58482DA20833A262 for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:22:16 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re:(SC22WG5.5841) Part 3: conditional compilation renewal? From: David Muxworthy In-Reply-To: <20170228095932.84AEA35834F@www.open-std.org> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:22:15 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <39A936E6-02E6-4EE8-BF38-9CCFA1A59FFF@bcs.org.uk> References: <20170228095932.84AEA35834F@www.open-std.org> To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Anton, > There's been some discussion here and in J3 > recently about the coming vote on Part 2: varying length > character strings. What about Part3: conditional compilation? > When will the decision have to be made to renew or > withdraw it? Is that date/year written in some WG5 document? The normal process for decision on renewal or withdrawal (or revision) is taken in an SC22 ballot with voting by national member bodies, that is BSI in our case. Recommendations by the BSI Fortran panel, or X3J3 in the case of the US, are usually but not necessarily followed. However Conditional Compilation was atypical. The result of the SC22 ballot in June 2010 (see WG5-N1832) was 'confirm'. It is quite common in SC22 ballots for countries that are not directly involved with development to vote the safest option rather than the most appropriate one. Nevertheless WG5 felt strongly that the standard should be withdrawn and asked the SC22 plenary meeting in September 2010 to request JTC1 for a further ballot on withdrawal. The outcome was withdrawal in May 2011. See https://www.iso.org/standard/29926.html Cheers, David