CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0344-1.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0344-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0344-1.txt	2020/01/14 02:01:57	1.3
+++ ai12s/ai12-0344-1.txt	2020/01/30 04:12:16	1.4
@@ -152,4 +152,46 @@
+From: Brad Moore
+Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019  10:52 PM
+>> ...
+>> My reasoning for having the Process parameter first is that all my 
+>> library calls have a Process parameter.
+>> It is the only common parameter, so it makes sense to have it as the 
+>> first parameter for consistency.
+> The proposed syntax for the procedural iterator allows you to omit the 
+> "<>" if the "process" parameter is last, which is the reason I put it last.
+[The above quote is from a thread filed in AI12-0357-1. - Editor.]
+And from another recent email....
+> I believe we have a bug in the legality requirement for Allows_Exit 
+> and Parallel_Iterator aspects.  It currently says that the callable 
+> entity shall have at least one parameter of an anonymous 
+> access-to-subprogram type.  I don't think that really makes sense.  I 
+> think we should say "exactly one" because otherwise how do we know 
+> which parameter is the "loop body procedure" which is mentioned in the 
+> description of the semantics of the aspects.
+My question is, if we are changing this to only allow "exactly one" parameter 
+of an anonymous access-to-subprogram type, then it seems a bit of a weird 
+restriction that it has to be the last parameter to allow omitting the <>. 
+If there can only be one such parameter, why not allow omitting the <> 
+regardless of which parameter it is?
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019  7:47 AM
+Interesting point.  Worth discussing at the ARG meeting, if not before.  I 
+was suggesting it being a requirement only when Allows_Exit or 
+Parallel_Iterator is specified True, but it is not a big leap to make it a 
+general requirement for any use of the procedural iterator.

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent