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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.234.38 with SMTP id ub6mr6353422pbc.2.1337000996412;
        Mon, 14 May 2012 06:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni24969pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:09:54 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <r9nolai9rkz8$.1j95yhyvqvm3o.dlg@40tude.net>
 <jofqoo$mrj$1@katthult.thorslund.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205141119370.13722@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
 <qtxntlbkkt94$.vdjdpliabtdo$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <qtxntlbkkt94$.vdjdpliabtdo$.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <4fb10423$0$6628$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 May 2012 15:09:55 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: f7ff707f.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=WM^?PfFH`5`m7>ihJR;B_cA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk\M8Q7Z_Bh2mnc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jmc1^d?NGgDXo
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-05-14T15:09:55+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 14.05.12 14:19, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 11:25:55 +0200, stefan-lucks@see-the.signature wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012, Gustaf Thorslund wrote:
>>
>>> I like the idea of parallel loops. Parallel functions I don't really 
>>> know what it is so can't tell. For importance I suppose it depends on 
>>> who you ask. There might even be those who could live without tasks.
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> parfor I in 1..10 loop --  parfor might not be best name, but I had to
>>>                        --  invent something
>>
>> That looks like the ideal place for a new pragma, rather than a new 
>> keyword:
>>
>>   for I in 1 .. 10 loop
>>     pragma(Parallelize_Loop);
>>     ...
>>   end loop;
> 
> No. If that is an advise to try to optimize the loop if possible, that
> should be a compiler switch.
> 
> When the compiler is rather ordered to run it in parallel and must flag it
> as an error if cannot (e.g. a mutex is taken inside etc), then that should
> be a statement.
> 
> P.S. I wonder why people keep on calling that thing loop. It has little to
> do with iterations. It is a set of paramerized sequences of statements
> executed asynchronously with a synchronization point at the end. The syntax
> should reflect that.

For a start,

  for all I in 1 .. 10 do
    { stmt }
  end do all;

  for some I in 1 .. 10 do
    { stmt }
  end do some;

all: do stmt for every I of 1 .. 10, in any order
some: do stmt for one I from 1 .. 10, arbitrarily chosen

While we are at it, can we have goal directed evaluation � la Icon?

   while some I ... => P(I, ...) do
      { stmt }
   end do some;