Subject: Results from DC meting

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 11:32:33 -0600

It will take a couple of days for me to get the full meeting notes, but 
I wanted to get this group a summary of the decisions that affect FORALL 
and INDEPENDENT.  To whit:

I presented the draft as circulated before the meeting.  (I didn't see 
John Merlin's comments before the meeting, so I didn't attempt to 
present them.)  I also presented Guy Steele's original proposal for 
INDEPENDENT as applied to DO (hereafter, DO INDEPENDENT).

Lots of discussion ensued, starting with Alan Karp's comments 
(distributed at the meeting, along with most of Rich Shapiro's replies).
To make a long story short, the whole group decided that FORALL was worth 
considering.  There is enough controversy that three scenarios are still 
possible:
	Accept FORALL completely into HPF
	Accept FORALL into HPF but not into the HPF subset
	Not accept FORALL at the final reading next meeting

Straw poll results:
	Should HPF have at least the single-satement FORALL?  
	  Yes 28, No 4, Abstain 4
	If FORALL could be in HPF but not in the subset, should FORALL be...
	  ...totally out of HPF?  2
	  ...in HPF but not in the subset?  15
	  ...in the subset? 16
	Should HPF have the FORALL construct with at least assignment  & 
	  unmasked array assignment?  
	  Yes 18, No 7, Abstain 9 
	Should HPF have the FORALL construct with nested WHERE statements with 
	  the current restrictions and semantics?
	  Yes 16, No 6, Abstain 13
	Should HPF have the FORALL construct with nested FORALLs and WHEREs?
	  Yes 13, No 8, Abstain 15
	Should HPF allow no side effects in functions in FORALL (rather than the 
	  current draft, which allowed "benign" side effects)?
	  Yes 15, No 12, Abstain 8
	Should HPF allow CALL in FORALLs (assuming side effects were allowed)?
	  Yes 7, No 14, Abstain 12
	Should HPF have the current INDEPENDENT assertion for DO loops?
	  Yes 27, No 2, Abstain 5

Marc Snir presented his local subroutines proposal.  There was a good 
deal of discussion, and it was decided to give a proposal based on this 
one a first reding at the next meeting.  No straw votes were taken.

Some results from the FORALL subgroup meeting after the main group meeting:

We were all suprised that the FORALL draft survived essentially unscathed.

Due to the closeness of the side effect vote, it was decided to prepare 
two proposals; one based on ELEMENTAL functions (or some other name for 
no-side-effect functions), and the other a cleaned-up version of the 
current proposal.  Right now, there is still some ambiguity over certain 
side effects (notably, can a function keep a count of the number of times 
it is called).  I'll try to synthesize both in the near future from 
existing documents.  If someone (Hi, John!) wants to beat me to the punch 
on the ELEMENTAL proposal, I won't feel offended.

P. Sadayappan and J. Ramanujam volunteered to draft an extension of 
INDEPENDENT to FORALL constructs and possibly other statements.  Min-You 
Wu and Clemmens Thole promised to provide input to that extension (or 
make their own proposals).

Guy Steele and Marc Snir will collaborate to combine their local 
subroutine proposals.  Based primarily on comments from Clemmens Thole, 
they will probably avoid defining any communication or FETCH/STORE 
functions within the routines; these have too many semantic complexities 
to get timely agreement, and tend to be architecture-dependent.