From malcolm@nag.co.uk Thu Jan 30 15:13:35 1997 Received: from red.nag.co.uk (red.nag.co.uk [192.156.217.2]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA15128 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:12:59 +0100 Received: from sedi8.nag.co.uk by red.nag.co.uk via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for jcownie@dolphinics.com id AA22074; Thu, 30 Jan 97 13:19:17 GMT Received: by sedi8.nag.co.uk (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for @red.nag.co.uk:mpi-bind@mcs.anl.gov id AA07831; Thu, 30 Jan 97 13:19:07 GMT From: malcolm@nag.co.uk (Malcolm Cohen) Message-Id: <9701301319.AA07831@sedi8.nag.co.uk> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1285) PASS_BY("descriptor") To: jcownie@dolphinics.com (James Cownie) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:19:06 +0000 (GMT) Cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk, mpi-bind@mcs.anl.gov In-Reply-To: <199701301114.MAA14530@dkuug.dk> from "James Cownie" at Jan 30, 97 10:09:10 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 605 James Cownie said: > Of course, *AND THAT'S NOT THE PROPOSAL* (sorry for shouting, Shouting does not help, actually. > but both > you and Malcolm have objected on these grounds, and I have never > proposed this, nor would I). > > To re-cap the proposal :- Thank you - that *does* help. Since the discussion was only cross-posted to SC22WG5 halfway through, we mere WG5 peons did not have the full facts of the discussion at our fingertips. I said this in my last message... Cheers, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)