(j3.2006) J3/15-244

[John Reid]

Bill Long wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I would argue that changing the COUNT description in EVENT_QUERY would be a bigger change - changing semantics rather than just a label - than the change in 244.  The original problem was a contradiction between the description of atomics and the COUNT treatment for an error condition.  Paper 242, in the second edit, tried the minimal change that could resolve that contradiction.  Plenary preferred a cleaner solution. Hence 242r1 is missing the original change and 244 implements a new repair.   The changes in 244 would not affect any implementation that based EVENT_QUERY on the content of the TS description of EVENT_QUERY.

I have to disagree here. Changing an atomic subroutine to be nonatomic 
is surely a big change. It is like making ATOMIC_REF nonatomic.

Cheers,

John.




> Cheers,
> Bill
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2015, at 3:44 AM, <john.reid at stfc.ac.uk> <john.reid at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I don't like J3/15-244 at all. It is tearing into the TR before it has even been published. I think all that is needed is to delete "Otherwise, it is assigned the value -1." from the description of COUNT. The user should be testing STAT for an error condition, not COUNT.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John.
>> _______________________________________________
>> J3 mailing list
>> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
>> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>