From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Sep 21 17:49:41 2012 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 2D0DA356933; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:49:41 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.53]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF73356909 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:49:38 +0200 (CEST) X-Trace: 814146330/mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$THROTTLED_STATIC/TalkTalk_Customer/2.97.121.220/None/John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 2.97.121.220 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: XX/UNKNOWN X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120909 Firefox/15.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.12.1 X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAAqMXFACYXnc/2dsb2JhbAANOME+AQEBBDgbJQEQCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBwKtUYpsiQeLHIYmA5VkhU6NPA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,464,1344207600"; d="scan'208";a="814146330" Received: from host-2-97-121-220.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([2.97.121.220]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2012 16:49:35 +0100 Message-ID: <505C8C8D.6070806@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:49:33 +0100 From: John Reid User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120909 Firefox/15.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fortran standards email list for J3 CC: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4793) [ukfortran] Interop TS: ballot response References: <20120921082020.BF310356909@www.open-std.org> <20120921085647.3BBF0356916@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20120921085647.3BBF0356916@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk N.M. Maclaren wrote: > On Sep 21 2012, John Reid wrote: >> >> Here is a draft response to the ballot comments from Germany (see N1938) >> and the corresponding changed Draft TS. The edits in N1941 have been >> discussed by J3. The whole response was constructed by Bill and has been >> checked by me and Reinhold. I would like now to open up the discussion >> to the whole of WG5. Is this response OK? Do you want another ballot? (I >> feel that I have been doing too many of these lately.) > > In my view, no. When I saw those comments, my reaction was "Oops!" > Those edits correct a couple of clear oversights. I am taking this to mean: the response is OK; we do not need another ballot. Cheers, John.