Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!texsun!convex!bleikamp@convex.UUCP
From: bleikamp@convex.UUCP (Richard Bleikamp)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Is this a correct Fortran 88 subroutine?
Summary: yes
Message-ID: <1671@convex.UUCP>
Date: 6 Sep 89 13:36:45 GMT
References: <1018@key.COM>
Sender: usenet@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: bleikamp@convex.UUCP (Richard Bleikamp)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 23

In article <1018@key.COM> sjc@key.COM (Steve Correll) writes:
>
>	SUBROUTINE X(L)
>	LOGICAL L
>	IF: IF ( L ) THEN
>	    ELSEIF		! This is not an ELSEIF statement
 Yes, this is an ELSE stmt with an optional construct name (fixed source form)!
>	    ENDIF IF
>	END
>-- 
>...{sun,pyramid}!pacbell!key!sjc 				Steve Correll

On page 8-2 of version 112 of S8 (latest working document from X3J3)
the ELSE statement allows an optional "if-contruct-name" after the ELSE
keyword.  This is not ambiguous, and appears no more difficult to handle
in a lex than most other Fortran "keywords" in non-keyword contexts.
However, if you worked for me, and wrote code like this, I'd probably
fire you :-).  But seriously, keep trying to find any really ambiguous
situations caused by the new proposed standard.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Bleikamp			    bleikamp@convex.com
Convex Computer Corporation