From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Wed Dec  8 09:21:38 2010
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 9DE64C3BA3D; Wed,  8 Dec 2010 09:21:38 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25DDEC3BA20
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed,  8 Dec 2010 09:21:37 +0100 (CET)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:60698)
	by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1PQFHL-0002Sv-Sz (Exim 4.72)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:21:35 +0000
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1PQFHL-0001zS-VS (Exim 4.67)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:21:35 +0000
Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.3); 08 Dec 2010 08:21:35 +0000
Date: 08 Dec 2010 08:21:35 +0000
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: longb@cray.com
Cc: fortran standards email list for J3 <j3@j3-fortran.org>,
	sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4391) (j3.2006) Result of informal ballot on	draft TR
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.3.1012080821350.7471@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20101207213645.D022FC178DA@www2.open-std.org>
References: <20101207184031.B5908C3BA20@www2.open-std.org>
 <20101207204342.68DF7C178E3@www2.open-std.org>
 <20101207213645.D022FC178DA@www2.open-std.org>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Dec 7 2010, Bill Long wrote:
>>
>
>Aleks did submit a comment, with explanation, of why CFI_cdesc_to_bounds 
>should be removed.   I'm assuming this would be an acceptable to you as 
>a solution to the problem you mentioned.

Absolutely.

Regards,
Nick.