Subject: Another tiny comment on the FORALL proposal

From: John Merlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 15:51:03 BST

A small point that I meant to mention in my message 'Comments on 
FORALL' yesterday, but forgot...

Arthur Veen ([email-masked] Sun Jul 19 14:15:11 1992) remarks that:
> 
> A - If HPF is going to extend the base language (I prefer that
>     it doesn't), I would like to have one extension rather
>     than two, i.e. EITHER the forall-stmt OR the forall-construct
> 	but not both.
> 	As far as I can tell, the only convenience the forall-stmt
> 	gives above the forall-construct is that you can leave out 
> 	"END FORALL".

I think that the introdunction of both a FORALL statement and 
construct is justified (indeed mandated) by the fact that 
Fortran 90 already has both a WHERE statement and construct.
(This follows from my thesis that FORALL is a kind of generalised 
WHERE, and should be designed to correspond as closely as possible 
with existing F90 array syntax).

Note also that Fortran has both an IF statement and construct.  
Therefore, it would be un-Fortranlike not to have this kind of
redundancy in a new construct! :-))

As I said, just a small point...

                         John Merlin.