From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Mon Aug  5 10:11:50 2013
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id CD1743571A8; Mon,  5 Aug 2013 10:11:49 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C41357194
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon,  5 Aug 2013 10:11:33 +0200 (CEST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:36194)
	by ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1V6Ft6-0007gi-iZ (Exim 4.80_167-5a66dd3) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 05 Aug 2013 09:11:32 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1V6Ft6-0007uB-OM (Exim 4.72) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 05 Aug 2013 09:11:32 +0100
Received: from [146.90.4.114] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 05 Aug 2013 09:11:32 +0100
Date: 05 Aug 2013 09:11:32 +0100
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5057) WG5 vote on draft TS on further coarray
 features
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1308050911320.28766@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20130805080607.3A6A23571A8@www.open-std.org>
References: <20130710091604.2E25F35700C@www.open-std.org>
 <20130801131842.02EE4357123@www.open-std.org>
 <20130805080607.3A6A23571A8@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 Aug 5 2013, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>>
>>Passim.  The specification is messy and restrictive, and should be
>>changed.  For example, it is not possible to reduce INTENT(IN) examples.
>
>I agree.
>
>Unfortunately this particular scheme does not work when SOURCE is a scalar 
>integer, because
>   CO_REDUCE(integer,procedure,integer)
>is ambiguous as to whether it is the first form or the second.

Oops.  Yes.

>It's probably clearer to have CO_SUM and CO_SUM_SELF.  Or something.

Yes.  Unless there is a clear and simple way to use a single name,
this would be better.  

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.