From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Thu Jan 17 05:13:07 2013
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 C9457356CA1; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:13:07 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
X-Greylist: delayed 3601 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:13:06 CET
Received: from vms173019pub.verizon.net (vms173019pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.19])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81264356A54
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:13:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.0.1.9] ([unknown] [24.9.79.217]) by vms173019.mailsrvcs.net
 (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009))
 with ESMTPA id <0MGQ00GF6WRFS600@vms173019.mailsrvcs.net> for
 sc22wg5@open-std.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:14:03 -0600 (CST)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4904) [ukfortran] Comment on a comment on the
	WG5 letterballot on N1947
From: Dan Nagle <dannagle@verizon.net>
X-Priority: 3
In-reply-to: <20130117025541.22E48356C9E@www.open-std.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:14:04 -0700
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <1DB96CF3-8470-4BA6-918B-BB9EBA09FA71@verizon.net>
References:
 <20130108205438.50F4E356B56@www.open-std.org><20130113210632.B1C67356BEA@www.open-std.org><20130116050422.92E30356BE0@www.open-std.org><20130116191114.A6A75356A2B@www.open-std.org><20130116223411.D135F356A2B@www.open-std.org>
 <20130116231527.45C11356C30@www.open-std.org>
 <20130117025541.22E48356C9E@www.open-std.org>
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Jan 16, 2013, at 17:57 , Malcolm Cohen <malcolm@NAG-J.CO.JP> wrote:
>=20
> I find it interesting that we are debating the technical merits of the =
proposal.=20
> If it warrants that, it warrants being left in the document, which is =
after all,=20
> only suggesting that we actually consider and debate the technical =
merits!

Indeed.  This thread, IMNSHO, constitutes full compliance
with the request that we "consider" the issue.

--=20
Cheers!

Dan Nagle