Subject: RE: [sv-ec] fork join proposal
From: Stefen Boyd (stefen@boyd.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 10:50:48 PST
At 10:16 AM 2/3/2003 -0800, David W. Smith wrote:
>Sorry but option 4 is exactly what Kevin has been proposing all along. If
>you look at the comments for Option 4 it refers to the possibility of a
>constant expression (that would evaluate to (-1, 0, 1) (we can argue about
>-1/all later). The difference is that you are suggesting that it be
>enclosed in parentheses. This is also possible. The primary question is
>whether it is an operator (=> none), additional keyword (none) , new
>keywords (join_none), or (0). If you feel strongly about it we can add a
>fifth option for the operator with a constant expression that results in a
>number ( (expression)) (potential performance problems with non-constant
>expressions).
I do feel strongly that option 4 as given is silly and
I would vote against it. Only the version I presented
has any chance against the other options.
Stefen
--------------------
Stefen Boyd Boyd Technology, Inc.
stefen@BoydTechInc.com (408)739-BOYD
www.BoydTechInc.com (408)739-1402 (fax)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 10:51:50 PST