From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sat Mar 9 10:36:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id D1AF6356D8C; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:36:31 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1534 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:36:31 CET Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F378356D47 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:36:30 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.ucs.cam.ac.uk/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:45847) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1UEFns-0004T3-QD (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:10:56 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1UEFns-0007CJ-37 (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:10:56 +0000 Received: from [146.90.178.211] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 09 Mar 2013 09:10:56 +0000 Date: 09 Mar 2013 09:10:56 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: sc22wg5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4925) Alternative to CHANGE TEAM construct Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20130309043124.86575356D8C@www.open-std.org> References: <20130309043124.86575356D8C@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Mar 9 2013, Van Snyder wrote: > >It's a bit late in the game to be pondering an alternative to CHANGE >TEAM. Then again, clause 5 of 12-201 was empty, CHANGE TEAM was not >mentioned in N1930, ... T4. >To that end, I believe the functionality of the CHANGE TEAM construct >would be better served by a WITH TEAM ( ) statement, ... > > if ( do_this ) with team ( t ) call s ( ... ) While this might be an apparent simplification, defining the semantic constraints for efficiency would be even harder. At a quick glance at N1930, that is where the problems are, anyway, but I have not had time to read it properly. Indeed, that has been the problem of parallelism since the start of its formalisation - defining syntax and intent is trivial, but defining appropriate constraints to make it usable, implementable and reliable is extremely hard. Regards, Nick Maclaren.