[J3] [EXTERNAL] Re: Why is += missing?

[Reuben D. Budiardja]

On 09/02/2021 11:55 AM, Vipul Parekh wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:50 AM Reuben D. Budiardja <reubendb at ornl.gov 
> <mailto:reubendb at ornl.gov>> wrote:
> 
>     On 09/01/2021 10:21 PM, Vipul Parekh via J3 wrote:
>      >
>      > Many aspects of modern Fortran (and by this I mean revisions
>     starting
>      > with Fortran 90) with block constructs have the look and feel of
>      > technical "grammar" and as such, it is welcome to my peers and
>      > colleagues.  From what I have seen and learnt, I believe
>     something like
>      > a 'WITH` _statement _clause will go better with modern Fortran
>     when it
>      > comes to statement-scope association:
>      >
>      >     with (s => 3*i+1) a(s) = b(s)
> 
> 
>     But isn't this essentially ASSOCIATE construct?
> 
>     ASSOCIATE ( s => 3*i+1 )
>     a(s) = b(s)
>     END ASSOCIATE
> 
> 
> Reuben,
> 
> If you look back at my note, you'll notice it was predicated on the 
> notion that has been expressed in this email chain and which is also 
> often seen elsewhere that ASSOCIATE is onerous, especially when the need 
> for `associate-name` is a small section of code, often simply a statement.
> 
> Thus the concept of statement-scope.  The premise behind my `WITH` 
> statement clause suggestion was to introduce something *integrates* with 
> the current language *without* introducing special characters that can 
> have special meaning, often depending on the context.

I am fond of special characters either. But seems to me WITH also has 
"with-name", it doesn't seem to save that much typing especially for a 
one-line statement.

I use ASSOCIATE construct quite a bit in my applications, and it's 
usefulness is exactly because it's a block scope.

Just my humble opinion :)

Best,
Reuben