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: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr6253019pbc.0.1336998002683;
        Mon, 14 May 2012 05:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni24836pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:19:26 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <qtxntlbkkt94$.vdjdpliabtdo$.dlg@40tude.net>
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>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-05-14T14:19:26+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.

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