From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Jun 23 22:19:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 6CEB2C178E7; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:19:52 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 792 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:19:51 CET DST Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (sca-es-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.43.132]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217E7C178E5 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:19:27 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n5NK5sxb028655 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:06:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) id <0KLP00G00JPQJ700@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.146.84.104] ([unknown] [129.146.84.104]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KLP002RAJTF8BB0@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:05:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:05:39 -0700 From: Robert Corbett Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4023) Late in the day question In-reply-to: <20090623193014.F4026C178E5@www2.open-std.org> To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov, fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: sc22wg5 Reply-To: Robert.Corbett@Sun.COM Message-id: <4A413593.6040508@sun.com> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <20090623193014.F4026C178E5@www2.open-std.org> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060509 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Van Snyder wrote: > It's kind of late in the day to ask such a question, but why did we > invent DO CONCURRENT instead of just extending the rules of the FORALL > construct? DO CONCURRENT and FORALL are orthogonal beasts. A FORALL is executed horizontally, while DO CONCURRENT is executed in vertical strips. Each statement within a FORALL construct is executed to completion before moving to the next statement. Therefore, conditional control flow makes no sense for a FORALL construct. For DO CONCURRENT, control flow within an iteration is sensible. > Does FORALL really have any advantage that DO CONCURRENT > doesn't? Does FORALL have any advantage over an ordinary DO? Bob Corbett