(j3.2006) [Fwd: C501 in TS 18508]

[Bill Long]

On 3/5/13 9:40 PM, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> Seems to be lots of straw men burning here...
>
> yes it would be nicer to have shorter descriptions that are also easier to
> understand.  Having it so that one must read the entire document to discover
> crucial information about CHANGE TEAM (there's my straw man!) is not *easier to
> understand*.
>

I agree.

> Pointing out differing styles and poverty of exposition of existing text is not
> good argument.  Why you would think someone reading CHANGE TEAM is going to read
> EXIT and RETURN and CYCLE and branching to discover that it is a
> single-exit-point construct is beyond me.  It is *important* in the context of
> CHANGE TEAM itself that it is a single-exit-point construct.
>
...

> Since CRITICAL/DO CONCURRENT are already described as a mixture, resolving this
> really should wait for integration.  The TS should not be attempting to modify
> the standard for mere stylistic purposes.

Perhaps, as part of integration, we could add CHANGE TEAM to the 
constraints for EXIT, CYCLE, and RETURN [I agree that an incomplete list 
in those constraints is unhelpful], and then add normative text in the 
CHANGE TEAM section something like "The appearance of EXIT (\ref), CYCLE 
(\ref), and RETURN (\ref) statements in a CHANGE TEAM construct are 
constrained to ensure that the construct terminates by execution of its 
END TEAM statement."  That gives the reader specific places to look for 
the constraints, rather than requiring reading of the whole document.

Cheers,
Bill

-- 
Bill Long                                           longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support    &                 voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development            fax:   651-605-9142
Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101