From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Sep 30 17:55:10 2011 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 51E543568EC; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:55:10 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44463568E5 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:55:07 +0200 (CEST) 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]:43947) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1R9fQY-0007HY-sh (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:55:06 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1R9fQY-0006Rs-UV (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:55:06 +0100 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.4); 30 Sep 2011 16:55:06 +0100 Date: 30 Sep 2011 16:55:06 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4550) Comments on the technical content of the coarray TS Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110930154635.54DD13568E5@www.open-std.org> References: <20110928104528.40F3C3568E7@www.open-std.org> <20110930113900.C09F63568CA@www.open-std.org> <20110930154635.54DD13568E5@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Sep 30 2011, John Reid wrote: >> >>> I have rechecked the WG5 Garching minutes and, while we did not >>> formally agree to Reinhold's point (2), I recall there being a >>> consensus that it was a necessary step within J3. > >I think you mean point 2(a). The main thrust (2) is a request for a 30% >increase in complexity, which is contrary to WG5's agreed aim of >avoiding such an increase. I did, indeed, mean 2(a). Thanks for the correction. Regards, Nick Maclaren.