(j3.2006) 14-010

[Robert Corbett]

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.

Bob Corbett