Subject: Re: Draft Proposal on Sequence and Storage Association

From: [email-masked] (Andy Meltzer)
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 14:00:38 CDT

>	Modification:   Original ------- R. Swift: March, 1992.
>			Version 1.0 ---  R. Swift: April 10, 1992
>			Version 1.1 ---  R. Schreiber, R. Swift: May 8, 1992

I'm not sure exactly what is different here, it seems that it has just
been cleaned up some.  Are there any substantial changes?

>	The compiler will insure that sequence and storage association
>	operates correctly for sequential arrays and COMMON blocks by
>	limiting the types of implicit distributions that are employed
>	for them.

This is a very limiting way to ensure that sequence and storage association
operate correctly.  It is mandating an implementation.  Can't we just say
that "the compiler will ensure that sequence and storage association 
operate correctly" without telling the compiler how to do so?

My proposal (sent out about a month ago) details a way to do this.  I again
want to point out that where we need not mandate limitations to the user
community, we should not do so.  The conservative approach is not to 
restrict these behaviors, it is to allow them, but to warn the user that
(like many other directives) some sequence and storage association 
distribution directives might be ignored by some compilers.  A compiler
might also warn that potential non-high-performance behavior might result.

Furthermore, by the definitions put forward here, any compiler which 
decides to extend the availability of sequence and storage association
is in violation of the specification, rather than extending it.

Again, please consider my proposed extension to this draft.

						Andy Meltzer

---

From: [email-masked] (Joel Williamson)
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 16:36:30 CDT

Andy Meltzer writes:

	...stuff deleted...
> community, we should not do so.  

> The conservative approach is not to 
> restrict these behaviors, it is to allow them, 

> but to warn the user that

I completely agree with Andy.

Joel Williamson