From jls@uxb.liv.ac.uk Tue Feb 9 10:50:05 1993 Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA29759 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Tue, 9 Feb 1993 11:51:13 +0100 Received: from mail.liv.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP; Tue, 09 Feb 93 10:50:37 GMT Received: from uxb.liverpool.ac.uk by mailhub.liverpool.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id <25804-0@mailhub.liverpool.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Feb 1993 10:50:24 +0000 From: jls Message-Id: <501.9302091050@uxb.liv.ac.uk > Subject: HPF 1.0 Chapter 6 To: hpff-comments@cs.rice.edu Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 10:50:05 GMT Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk (SC22/WG5 members) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 This time I am having difficulty understanding the chapter. I cannot see why the calling program needs to know that the called program is extrinsic. It would appear to me that all the activities necessary to broadcast the operation of the procedure and replicate it across the available processors can be and properly should be the buisness of the procedure not the program that calls it. Why then is EXTRINSIC a feature of the explicit interface? There are two errors in F90 in the examples: 1.the overload on page 100 for operator(+) is ambiguous and hence illegal. the operation + between two 2D real arrays is already defined intrinsically and unlike assignment cannot be overridden by a user generic. 2. On page 109 the name SREDUCE appears to be used twice with different incompatible meanings. I would appreciate someone explaining how extrinsic affects the interface to a procedure from the point of view of the calling program. -- Dr.J.L.Schonfelder Director, Computing Services Dept. University of Liverpool, UK Phone: +44(51)794 3716 FAX : +44(51)794 3759 email: jls@liv.ac.uk