(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4023) Late in the day question

[Robert Corbett]

Van Snyder wrote:
> It's kind of late in the day to ask such a question, but why did we
> invent DO CONCURRENT instead of just extending the rules of the FORALL
> construct?

DO CONCURRENT and FORALL are orthogonal beasts.  A FORALL is
executed horizontally, while DO CONCURRENT is executed in
vertical strips.  Each statement within a FORALL construct is
executed to completion before moving to the next statement.
Therefore, conditional control flow makes no sense for a
FORALL construct. For DO CONCURRENT, control flow within an
iteration is sensible.

> Does FORALL really have any advantage that DO CONCURRENT
> doesn't?

Does FORALL have any advantage over an ordinary DO?

Bob Corbett