From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Mon Oct 26 16:16:31 2009
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id D9EF8C178E4; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:16:31 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ironport1.lbl.gov (ironport1.lbl.gov [128.3.41.47])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123E4C178E3
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:16:29 +0100 (CET)
X-Ironport-SBRS: None
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AusAAA9a5UpMfpWb/2dsb2JhbAAI2FWEPwQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,626,1249282800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="124588063"
Received: from c-76-126-149-155.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (HELO [192.168.1.104]) ([76.126.149.155])
  by ironport1.lbl.gov with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 26 Oct 2009 08:16:27 -0700
Message-ID: <4AE5BD4C.1050603@lbl.gov>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:16:28 -0700
From: Aleksandar Donev <adonev@lbl.gov>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: SC22WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4122) [ukfortran]   Parallel random numbers
References: <20091020154252.946EAC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021161933.1B2FCC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021171501.21FA4C178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021175702.E4D26C178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091022043326.83DB9C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022051613.0AEF5C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022062554.CF066C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022115243.E875EC178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022160201.90187C76BB7@www2.open-std.org> <20091022172236.755B9C76BB7@www2.open-std.org> <20091023215253.78206C76BB7@www2.open-std.org> <20091026130908.E4F6BC178E1@www2.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20091026130908.E4F6BC178E1@www2.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:
>    2) Are you really saying that the Fortran standard should REQUIRE a
> known, deficient approach, of a nature that every expert in this area
> regards as unacceptable?  That's not the Fortran I know.
The problem is that your response only says what is wrong with the 
independent sequence model, it does not say anything about why your 
proposed approach (processor dependent) is good. If we really want to do 
something good, we should do it, rather than rely on some compiler 
intern to get it right. At least the independent sequence model is clear 
and simple.
Best,
Aleks