Niki Reid writes:
> The previous FORALL thread briefly touched on many-to-one
> assignments,...
> I know that in other places in the standard, such as array
> assignment, non-determinism is prohibited, but this is not an
> array assignment: each assignment in the given example is
> treated as though it were scalar.
>
> The overall result, though, is a non-deterministic FORALL
> construct, which I can't find prohibited in the standard.
>
> Am I missing something, or it this as intended?
You are missing section 7.5.4.4. That's exactly what the first
half of that section is about. This is a many-to-one asignment.
That section defines the term and says that such are ilegal in
a forall. It is specifically about foralls.
No, each assignment is *NOT* treated as though it were a
scalar. It is part of a forall. There are differences; the
many-to-one issue is one of them.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
[log in to unmask] | experience comes from bad judgment.
| -- Mark Twain
