From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Mon Mar  3 13:36:27 2008
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom6
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom6@open-std.org
Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id A4C21DA753; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 13:36:27 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from gloin.rl.ac.uk (gloin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.201])
	by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C7738507
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon,  3 Mar 2008 13:36:07 +0100 (CET)
X-RAL-MFrom: <j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk>
X-RAL-Connect: <jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]>
Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202])
	by gloin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m23CZjce031935
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:35:45 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m23CZjAF014915;
	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:35:45 GMT
Message-ID: <47CBF0A1.7080700@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:35:45 +0000
From: John Reid <j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk>
Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk
Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060209 Fedora/1.7.12-1.1.2.legacy
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re:  N1718: co_lbound and co_ubound
References: <20080229200013.07177D8911@open-std.org> <20080303055447.583B1D7D99@open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080303055447.583B1D7D99@open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -1.44 : ALL_TRUSTED
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.61 on 130.246.135.201
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:59:51 +0900, John Reid <j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>>N1718 is without co_lbound and co_ubound. I think this is a mistake.
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> In retrospect it is a pity that 08-131 didn't have a reminder NOT to
> delete those (they are mixed in with the collectives), as it was a
> pretty easy mistake to make...
> 
> ...but the mistake and the responsibility are certainly mine alone.
> My apologies.
> 
> But does this mean we need a new document before proceeding to CD?
> The missing routines are certainly convenient (and should be reinstated
> in the next revision whenever that is) but they are I think not
> essential to coarray programming (unlike THIS_IMAGE et al), so
> it doesn't appear to be a fatal flaw.
> 
> (Producing a new document is neither cost-free nor risk-free...)
> 
> Opinions?

I think our reason for having a ballot is to catch mistakes like this and that 
the correction should be made.

Cheers,

John.