(j3.2006) an alternative to Aleks' asynchronous proposal

[Aleksandar Donev]

On Friday 20 June 2008 08:05, Lionel, Steve wrote:

> unless we
> are to add a block construct with syntax listing the variables that
> should be considered asynchronous in that block. ?
This is already there in Fortran 2008 via the BLOCK construct:

BLOCK
	ASYNCHRONOUS :: a, b
	....
END BLOCK

The problem is that it cannot be split across programming units, so you can 
start the transfer at one point and end elsewhere (isn't this common?).

> Should a statement be added saying that there is an implicit memory
> synchronization point at the "return" point for the current procedure?
My proposed SYNC attribute for the procedure was something like this, though 
maybe there are other better ways.

Best,
Aleks