(j3.2006) "Contiguous" doesn't quite do what I need

Van Snyder van.snyder
Fri Mar 23 18:16:29 EDT 2007

On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 21:31 +0000, dick.hendrickson at att.net wrote:
> More seriously, isn't the CONTIGUOUS attribute also error prone?  It
> took us several tries to get it as right as we now have it in the
> standard.  That means that contiguous has ramifications that don't
> immediatly come to mind.

I might do a paper on my proposed different syntax for contiguous, which
also embodies the mixed explicit/assumed shape facility.  I had in mind
bootstrapping the work already done on contiguous, with whatever
generalizations are necessary to make it work in the case that only some
leading subset of the dimensions are contiguous.  With a paper in hand,
one will be better able to judge whether it's too big a bite to swallow.
Better to go out to the barn and count the horse's teeth than to argue
indefinitely on philosophical grounds how many he ought to have.

Van Snyder                    |  What fraction of Americans believe 
Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov       |  Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or
disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, the President, or anybody else.

More information about the J3 mailing list