(j3.2006) Papers 13-316, 13-317, 13-318

[Malcolm Cohen]

>In retrospect, it's not obvious that we need a REDUCE intrinsic
>function, since (unlike the CO_REDUCE case) it's so easy to write one.

I do not agree.  SUM might be pretty easy to write, but the general REDUCE not 
so much.

>The considerations that led to CO_REDUCE simply do not apply in the
>non-coarray case.

Right, the coarray one is simpler.

>  I think J3 should ask WG5 to remove this requirement.

CO_REDUCE maybe.  REDUCE no.

>Assuming it remains, paper 13-318 needs extensive revision.

The UK is already writing papers for its proposals, as promised... we have not 
yet submitted them though, as they are, as yet, incomplete.  I am pretty sure 
they have all been started though... in particular, there will be a UK paper for 
REDUCE.

>In N1983, CO_REDUCE has many of the same problems.

Indeed, in our copious spare time the UK is thinking of submitting corrections 
to those as well.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.