From: Steven Sharp (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 12:17:39 PDT
>I don't think 281 was ever formally resolved by the ETF,
>just that nobody objected to closing it.
I think that the reason everyone agreed to close it is that everyone
agreed with our comments saying that the answer was already clear
and what that answer was.
>Regardless, if so many people are confused by the semantics of fork-join,
>maybe we should add a short explanation in the 1364 LRM.
Both times the issue has come from the same source, so I'm not convinced
that this indicates widespread confusion.
The difficulty with adding explanatory text about this specific situation
is that it might have the reverse effect of convincing people that there
is something special and unexpected about the situation. They might think
that the text represents a specific decision about a special case that
could have just as easily been made the other way. They might not realize
that it is just an explanation of something that follows naturally and
automatically from the existing scope rules.
Mind you, trying to use the existing text to support an explanation of
the rules shows flaws in the text. It could stand some reworking. But
if so, it should be a better explanation of when allocation occurs, not
a special description of one of the cases where it doesn't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Thu May 22 2003 - 12:19:52 PDT
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.