From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Thu Mar 15 20:35:48 2012
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 1BA309DB118; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:35:48 +0100 (CET)
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 www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CAE09DB112
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:35:47 +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]:42633)
	by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1S8GSf-0000vV-Px (Exim 4.72)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:35:45 +0000
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1S8GSe-0000hG-W3 (Exim 4.67)
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:35:45 +0000
Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.4); 15 Mar 2012 19:35:44 +0000
Date: 15 Mar 2012 19:35:44 +0000
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: Craig Rasmussn <crasmussen@lanl.gov>
Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner (rabenseifner@hlrs.de)" <rabenseifner@hlrs.de>,
    Jeff Squyres <jsquyres@cisco.com>, WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4654) (j3.2006) AW: Vote on N1904
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.4.1203151935440.31337@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20120315185117.745369DB112@www.open-std.org>
References: <20120312152923.857DB9DB112@www.open-std.org>
 <20120314164259.A5DD4356A46@www.open-std.org>
 <20120314215009.D830F9DB112@www.open-std.org>
 <20120315132645.357C59DB112@www.open-std.org>
 <20120315185117.745369DB112@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 Mar 15 2012, Craig Rasmussn wrote:

> The intent (surely, no pun intended) for MPI-3 receive buffers was to 
> stay away from requirement that "the dummy argument becomes undefined on 
> invocation of the procedure." Thus all of the MPI-3 TYPE(*) dummy 
> arguments are either INTENT(IN) or no intent is specified.
>
> Would appreciate advice if anyone believes that this was the wrong 
> decision.

I believe not.  Certainly, I wasn't asserting it.  My point was different,
and I now realise that I made a mistake using MPI as an example - I should
have used another example.

Given that there seems to be general agreement (Nick dissenting), I don't
think that it worth spending more time on this.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.