From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Aug 5 10:11:50 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 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 ; 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 ); 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 ); 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" To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5057) WG5 vote on draft TS on further coarray features Message-ID: 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.