(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5448) [ukfortran] Response to TS ballot

[John Reid]

Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> Two spectacular misses.
>
> (1)
> I wrote:
> I note that in the case of executing code
> outside (but called from) a CHANGE TEAM construct, "innermost" has no meaning.
>
> To which you propose to make the edit:
> [14:29] Replace "construct" by "innermost executing CHANGE TEAM
> construct".
>
> Innermost has a good meaning if you accepted my other recommendation, that this
> effect be limited to code actually within a CHANGE TEAM construct, but you
> rejected that.
>
> So I have to repeat again, "INNERMOST" HAS NO MEANING in the case of executing
> code outside (but called from) a CHANGE TEAM construct.  Innermost is a spacial
> term referring to the placement of statements and constructs *Lexically Within*
> other constructs.  It is not a temporal term referring to the order of
> execution!
>
> Perhaps you mean something like "active CHANGE TEAM construct that most recently
> begun execution"?  In which case, that is something like what you need to say.

Agreed.

> There could well be MANY "innermost" CHANGE TEAM constructs being executed...
>
> I further note that you went without my suggestion of "whose END TEAM statement
> has a STAT= specifier".  It seems pointless to transfer control to an END TEAM
> statement without a STAT= specifier since that will immediately cause error
> termination.  If that is your intent, would it not be better to have error
> termination immediately (at the erring code) rather than in the END TEAM
> statement?  (The user will thank you for not throwing away the info about where
> the problem occurred!)  If that is not your intent, well...

In this case, I think we need to say that the image stays stalled for ever.

>
> (2)
> I wrote:
> - The syntax is "FAIL IMAGE <stop-code>".  I see no purpose in using the
> <stop-code> BNF rule here.
>
> You reply:
> The <stop-code> BNF rule defines what the user can write.
>
> ...which is PRECISELY my complaint.  WHY is the user being limited in this way?
> Why on earth should this be required to be a constant expression?  The
> <stop-code> syntax is irregular and unnecessary.  Just make it an expression of
> type integer or character.  Or even just type character (there is no "process
> exit status" to be set here).

Agreed.

Cheers,

John.