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!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
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>
 <uslcxt1u7.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <1172239820.896603.222120@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <u649rx29a.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <nhn5b4-9b2.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <pan.2007.02.24.22.11.44.430179@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <u7iu68eba.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <es4dl5$ve2$1@newsserver.cilea.it>
 <pan.2007.03.01.11.23.01.229462@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <113ls6wugt43q$.cwaeexcj166j$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <pan.2007.03.02.11.36.51.700020@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <1i3drcyut9aaw.isde6utlv6iq.dlg@40tude.net>
 <uvehjjdff.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <1c61jqeqo68w$.2irtg70stnsa.dlg@40tude.net>
 <uejo681zf.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net> <ygek5xvms48.fsf_-_@hugsarin.dmusyd.edu>
 <pan.2007.03.06.02.02.27.892793@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <pan.2007.03.06.13.19.20.336128@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <eskuj6$cap$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:59:54 +0100
Message-ID: <1vdieyr16h7ct$.1vuvfmghy8dzo$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Mar 2007 09:59:54 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: d5df264e.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=>NSRF8XCl3Uf8j24CD<3lPA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[3<mD[c8leER[6LHn;2LCV^7enW;^6ZC`TIXm65S@:3>_7OeQmihZeT]
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9741
Date: 2007-03-07T09:59:54+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:49:32 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.06.13.19.20.336128@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk...
> ...
>> One aspect of this discussion is the inaccessability of fine-grain
>> concurrency to either a harware developer or a software developer.
>> As a processor designer, I can see how to implement concurrent
>> calls and concurrent memory access - but doing this does not help
>> run any existing code.  As a programmer, I can see where my code
>> is logically concurrent, but the language denies me this expressiveness,
>> and my processor doesn't support it.  Some leadership is needed!
> 
> Exactly my point; by allowing this to be written and then mapped
> conventionally, programmers can get used to the idea of specifying
> fine-grained parallelism (preferably with checking!), without having to
> invest in all new (and thus buggy) systems.

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?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de