Re: [sv-ec] rewording 1615

Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> Geoffrey,
> 
> 1. The objection came from me. I did not suggest leaving only the
> condition about initial blocks. In an earlier comment, I had suggested
> the following:
> 
> "Calling a function that executes a fork..join_none block shall be legal
> only in procedural code originating in an initial block and illegal in
> any context in which a side effect is disallowed."

I came across your proposal in Mantis after I wrote the e-mail; the
complete sentence was not in Neil's e-mail summarizing the Champions'
feedback, and I had missed that there were two conditions.

> 2. I had also commented:
> Is there a difference between "originating in an initial block" and "in
> an initial block"? If so, are readers going to understand the
> difference?

I was just trying to fix that one sentence; I can only guess about
this point.  Can't an initial procedure call a function (or task?)
that has procedural code?  In which case, I would say this code
"originates in" but is not "in" an initial procedure.

> 3. Also:
> [snip]
> The 1615 proposal does not mention always procedures and the 1336
> proposal does. Is that correct?

I don't recall EC discussing this point (maybe it was at the very
end of the call after I left?).

-Geoffrey

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.