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-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.241.98 with SMTP id wh2mr1330641pbc.7.1336634969458;
        Thu, 10 May 2012 00:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni9101pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.ecp.fr!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!hugin.jacob-sparre.dk!news.thorslund.org!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: Gustaf Thorslund <gustaf@thorslund.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 09:29:28 +0200
Organization: gustaf.thorslund.org
Message-ID: <jofqoo$mrj$1@katthult.thorslund.org>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <r9nolai9rkz8$.1j95yhyvqvm3o.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: katthult.thorslund.org 1336634968 23411 ::1 (10 May 2012 07:29:28
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@thorslund.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:29:28 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
In-Reply-To: <r9nolai9rkz8$.1j95yhyvqvm3o.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-05-10T09:29:28+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2012-04-25 10:36, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> 2) parallel loops / functions
>
> I don't think this is important.

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.

Some things I can think of here

a) The loop should be possible to run sequentially so for example

parfor I in 1..10 loop --  parfor might not be best name, but I had to
                        --  invent something
   if I = 5 then
      Wait_For_Some_Event_From(9); -- should not be expected to work
   end if;
end loop;

b) The user have to deal with concurrency

X : Integer := 0
.
.
parfor I in 1..10 loop
   X := X + I; -- should not be expected to work either
end loop;

> But I do like to see some low-level primitives to support lock-free
> concurrency, like atomic increment etc. The compiler would either use the
> corresponding hardware operations or else generate a protected object if no
> hardware support is there.

Sounds like something that could also be useful when doing something like b.

47)

Pancake.Fry -- Would be nice it if worked even if Pancake is not tagged 
but just a simple record.

4711.Put -- Might be going a bit too far, but then X.Foo would only be 
syntactic sugar for Foo(X) without the need "use Bar" or write Bar.Foo(X).

Regards,
Gustaf
-- 
http://gustaf.thorslund.org