(j3.2006) LOCK/UNLOCK question

[Aleksandar Donev]

Hello,

Firstly, why don't I ever see Dick's original messages? Is he not on the 
J3 list anymore? My inbox has no messages from Dick...

> Well, we only needs words to define the cases we make valid; I believe 
> that, as long as we leave the "no-side-effects" rule
OK...I have always found the "no-side-effects" clauses somewhat 
ambiguous and difficult to exactly pin-point, but as long as it is clear 
what is legal and not I am fine.

Can someone please point me to the actual side-effect words in 09-007r1? 
"Side-effect" only seems to appear in notes so there must be other 
wording...

> intact we already 
> have the words for what LOCK/UNLOCK do.
I would propose that the only legal thing be a paired LOCK/UNLOCK on the 
same lock within the multiple procedures. Otherwise it sounds to me like 
an actual visible) side-effect, which should not be allowed. Sounds 
"safe" enough, although I will continue to grudge about CRITICAL(lock) 
being rejected...

Bill also mentioned STOP and SYNC MEMORY. The first one already seems 
allowed to me. If one of the functions calls STOP, clearly no other can 
also "cause execution of" STOP. So no change seems needed to me.

Best,
Aleks

-- 
Aleksandar Donev, Ph.D.
Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellow @ LLNL
High Performance Computational Materials Science and Chemistry
E-mail: donev1 at llnl.gov
Phone: (925) 424-6816  Fax: (925) 423-0785
Address: P.O.Box 808, L-367, Livermore, CA 94551-9900
Web: http://cims.nyu.edu/~donev