From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Feb 20 11:23:26 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 DE5A235862B; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:23:26 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from out.ipsmtp1nec.opaltelecom.net (out.ipsmtp1nec.opaltelecom.net [62.24.202.73]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99423357068 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:23:22 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2CVAQCuCudU/8p3L1ANTs0WAoFZAQEBAQEBhQsBAQEDATgbJQYLCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBgoDCAKII7pLlFGEbQEBAQEBBQEBAQEBARyLD4QWX4QqBY1eh2KDT4EZjlSDPoQQgXGBQQEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A2CVAQCuCudU/8p3L1ANTs0WAoFZAQEBAQEBhQsBAQEDATgbJQYLCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBgoDCAKII7pLlFGEbQEBAQEBBQEBAQEBARyLD4QWX4QqBY1eh2KDT4EZjlSDPoQQgXGBQQEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,614,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="459416452" Received: from host-80-47-119-202.as13285.net (HELO [192.168.1.4]) ([80.47.119.202]) by out.ipsmtp1nec.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2015 10:23:06 +0000 Message-ID: <54E70B03.2060308@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:22:59 +0000 From: John Reid User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 SeaMonkey/2.32.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5447) [ukfortran] Response to TS ballot References: <20150219231019.EF7E83570D2@www.open-std.org> <20150220023038.D13963570D2@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20150220023038.D13963570D2@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Malcolm Cohen wrote: > 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. Agreed. > 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... In this case, I think we need to say that the image stays stalled for ever. > > (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). Agreed. Cheers, John.