Fri Jan 24 00:01:38 EST 2014
On 01/23/14 08:54, Bill Long wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Van Snyder<Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> Now that we've obsolesced the FORALL statement and construct in favor of
>> DO CONCURRENT, we no longer have an equivalent as terse as a FORALL
>> statement. As feature creep, could we propose a CONCURRENT statement,
>> for consideration at the June WG5 meeting?
> I would not favor proposing such a thing. I don?t recall ever seeing the statement version of FORALL used in practice. Adding a similar syntax for DO CONCURRENT would add no useful functionality, and it seems like a stylistic regression. The task for F2015 was to remove warts, not add them.
I have seen several uses of FORALL statements. I rarely
see uses of FORALL constructs. The uses of FORALL
constructs I have seen are usually incorrect. That is
likely because I have seen most of them in bug reports
filed against our compiler or our debugger.
I would not mind retaining FORALL statements. They offer
most of the useful functionality of FORALL constructs
without much of the complexity of FORALL constructs,
regarding both implementation and comprehension.
I would like to get rid of the WHERE construct. While
the WHERE construct is not as bad as the FORALL
construct, it has much of the same complexity.
More information about the J3