From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Fri Feb  5 18:49:48 2010
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 0584FC3BA3B; Fri,  5 Feb 2010 18:49:48 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
X-Greylist: delayed 624 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:49:46 CET
Received: from ironport2.lbl.gov (ironport2.lbl.gov [128.3.41.14])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA54C3BA37
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri,  5 Feb 2010 18:49:46 +0100 (CET)
X-Ironport-SBRS: None
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAEfma0uAAwU8/2dsb2JhbACBM5psvDOEUgQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,414,1262592000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="106547445"
Received: from angilas.lbl.gov (HELO angilas.localnet) ([128.3.5.60])
  by ironport2.lbl.gov with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Feb 2010 09:39:17 -0800
From: Aleksandar Donev <adonev@lbl.gov>
Organization: LBL
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4160) Question about our design for 
 =?iso-8859-15?q?associate=09names?=
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:39:16 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.28-17-generic; KDE/4.2.2; x86_64; ; )
References: <20100205040451.A151BC3BA06@www2.open-std.org> <20100205053914.890D6C3BA06@www2.open-std.org> <20100205160156.854B2C3BA26@www2.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100205160156.854B2C3BA26@www2.open-std.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201002050939.17032.adonev@lbl.gov>
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Friday 05 February 2010, Jim Xia wrote:
> there is no evidence at this point that DO CONCURRENT construct is
> anything better than FORALL.
God knows what you mean by "evidence". The two constructs are different 
things. And there are several compilers that support IVDEP or some such 
directive and I am sure they did it for a reason (is this evidence?). DO 
CONCURRENT is new but is simply a standardization of that.
Best,
Aleks