From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How to get Ada to ?cross the chasm??
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 10:46:33 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <pcbtt8$11sa$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <1c73f159-eae4-4ae7-a348-03964b007197@googlegroups.com>
 <dbcb51b9-8ab9-4d39-bb70-47fdb15ebfd8@googlegroups.com>
 <pb7eii$bf1$1@dont-email.me>
 <b75ad71f-a917-4638-9b38-ccfe69b04e53@googlegroups.com>
 <slrnpdpiv9.ntv.address@is.invalid> <pbr3mi$leu$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <87k1su7nag.fsf@nightsong.com> <pbtlno$3k2$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <87po2la2qt.fsf@nightsong.com> <87in8buttb.fsf@jacob-sparre.dk>
 <87wowqpowu.fsf@nightsong.com>
 <16406268-83df-4564-8855-9bd0fe9caac0@googlegroups.com>
 <87o9i2pkcr.fsf@nightsong.com> <pc3tcv$bno$1@dont-email.me>
 <87bme2oy91.fsf@nightsong.com> <pc8ln8$koq$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <877eoom26h.fsf@nightsong.com> <pc92b5$jpq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <1c4c7bd9-fa68-4ea2-8419-098becb6993e@googlegroups.com>
 <pcaptm$ht9$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: MyFhHs417jM9AgzRpXn7yg.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51914
Date: 2018-05-02T10:46:33+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 02/05/2018 00:32, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> P.S. The reason this feature is being considered is that it is easily
> executed in parallel; and a lot of loops are better written this way as it
> avoids the need for an accumulator in a parallel loop, which necessarily
> needs some sort of synchronization.

Or just for Schadenfreude, maybe? (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de