From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Fri Sep 30 17:55:10 2011
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 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 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; 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 <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); 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 <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); 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" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4550) Comments on the technical content of
 the coarray TS
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.4.1109301655060.22507@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
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.