From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Feb 20 03:30:38 2015 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 6893C3585D2; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 03:30:38 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197DD3568C8 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 03:30:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1K2USHQ092410 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:30:31 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) Message-ID: <40347FAA81A94C9DB60AADDE38FBE22F@Maru6> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" References: <20150219231019.EF7E83570D2@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20150219231019.EF7E83570D2@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5446) Response to TS ballot Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:30:29 +0900 Organization: =?UTF-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Two spectacular misses. (1) I wrote: I note that in the case of executing code outside (but called from) a CHANGE TEAM construct, "innermost" has no meaning. To which you propose to make the edit: [14:29] Replace "construct" by "innermost executing CHANGE TEAM construct". Innermost has a good meaning if you accepted my other recommendation, that this effect be limited to code actually within a CHANGE TEAM construct, but you rejected that. So I have to repeat again, "INNERMOST" HAS NO MEANING in the case of executing code outside (but called from) a CHANGE TEAM construct. Innermost is a spacial term referring to the placement of statements and constructs *Lexically Within* other constructs. It is not a temporal term referring to the order of execution! Perhaps you mean something like "active CHANGE TEAM construct that most recently begun execution"? In which case, that is something like what you need to say. There could well be MANY "innermost" CHANGE TEAM constructs being executed... I further note that you went without my suggestion of "whose END TEAM statement has a STAT= specifier". It seems pointless to transfer control to an END TEAM statement without a STAT= specifier since that will immediately cause error termination. If that is your intent, would it not be better to have error termination immediately (at the erring code) rather than in the END TEAM statement? (The user will thank you for not throwing away the info about where the problem occurred!) If that is not your intent, well... (2) I wrote: - The syntax is "FAIL IMAGE ". I see no purpose in using the BNF rule here. You reply: The BNF rule defines what the user can write. ...which is PRECISELY my complaint. WHY is the user being limited in this way? Why on earth should this be required to be a constant expression? The syntax is irregular and unnecessary. Just make it an expression of type integer or character. Or even just type character (there is no "process exit status" to be set here). Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.