Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ogccse!blake!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Why array notation
Message-ID: <1763@garth.UUCP>
Date: 6 Nov 88 00:39:11 GMT
References: <689@convex.UUCP>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 28

>	PDO 10 I=1,N			! PDO for "PARALLEL DO"
>10      A(I)=B(I+1)+C(I)
>
>The latter requires minimal syntactic changes and, for long loops, is
>more concise and readable.  Is the problem with the details of defining
>"PDO", or is it some more strategic reason?

perhaps:

(1) say what you mean, don't use something that looks sequential for parallel.

(2) what about

            PDO I=1,N
              A(I)=A(I+1)+A(I-1))

    or

            PDO I=1,N
              B(I)=A(I)+C(I)
              A(I)=A(I)+B(I+1)
              C(I)=C(I)+B(I-1)
-- 
                                                   -- s m ryan
+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|    ....such cultural highlights as    |    Nature is Time's way of having    |
|    Alan Thicke, and, uh,....          |    pausible deniability.             |
+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+