From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a44c40a66c293f3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!inka.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: PAR (Was: Embedded languages based on early Ada) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <1172192349.419694.274670@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1172239820.896603.222120@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <113ls6wugt43q$.cwaeexcj166j$.dlg@40tude.net> <1i3drcyut9aaw.isde6utlv6iq.dlg@40tude.net> <1c61jqeqo68w$.2irtg70stnsa.dlg@40tude.net> <1vdieyr16h7ct$.1vuvfmghy8dzo$.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:55:35 +0100 Message-ID: <1l5727owshrjf$.uuylbc4ek430.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Mar 2007 20:55:26 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 80a0a014.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=6Oan2VgAm;\Fm0Y?OE@2^Xic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQFl8W>\BH3YR^8KKO5n_BHYDNcfSJ;bb[UIRnRBaCdR]b=NKHVob@9gk3l>YQ X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9759 Date: 2007-03-07T20:55:26+01:00 List-Id: On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:26:08 GMT, Ray Blaak wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: >> Hmm, but checking is really the key issue here. I fail to see it in bare >> PAR. It is just absent there. What would be the semantics of: >> >> declare >> I : Integer := 0; >> begin in parallel >> I := I + 1; >> I := I - 1; >> end; -- What is the postcondition here? > > That would be bad programming, just as if you expressed it equivalently with > expicit task bodies. Why is it bad programming? Consider this: declare Sum : Numeric := 0.0; begin in parallel Sum := Sum + Integrate (Series (1..N); Sum := Sum + Integrate (Series (N+1..2*N); Sum := Sum + Integrate (Series (2*N+1..3*N); ... end; > Ada already has synchronization constructs that need to be used to allow > dependent concurrent items to coordinate properly. If so, then what would be the contribution of PAR? One important proposition is that there is no any use in PAR running absolutely independent code. So the question arise, what *exactly* PAR does with: 1. ":=" x 2 times 2. "+" 3. "-" 4. "I" x 4 times ? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de