Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!milton!whit
From: whit@milton.u.washington.edu (John Whitmore)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Is this kosher?
Summary: VMS FORTRAN/STANDARD should really catch this 'extension'
Message-ID: <15512@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 91 02:39:04 GMT
References: <20785@hydra.gatech.EDU> <2812@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <91030.132436KENCB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 20

In article <91030.132436KENCB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> KENCB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>    [stuff deleted]
>
>I was very suprised at the VAX Fortran reference because ever since I first
>read the VAX Fortran manual (VMS V2.1), I "knew" you weren't supposed to
>jump into a IF-block.

>However, MUCH to my SURPRISE, John's test program fragment compiled just
>FINE under VAX Fortran!  Sheez!  I think it's time for an SPR on this...

	I second the motion; an SPR would indeed be appropriate.  I
try to keep my VMS FORTRAN code compliant (using FORTRAN/STANDARD is
a big help).  This is the second nonstandard extension I've seen
unflagged (the first is the free-format use of TAB character).
Not flagging the TAB use is reasonable (it's easy to edit out, and
the number of violations in a long program can be staggering).  The
IF block entry is not easy to edit out, but would require some 
rethinking if porting to a new compiler were attempted.

	John Whitmore