Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Are GOTOs restricted in Fortran 88
Message-ID: <77230@sun.uucp>
Date: 11 Nov 88 19:03:06 GMT
References: <4213@pitt.UUCP> <50500088@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <41017@aero.ARPA>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 29

In article <41017@aero.ARPA> campbell@aero.UUCP (L. Andrew Campbell) writes:

> old question about extended do, with the old answer that it
> is not in x3.9-1978.

>This is the 2nd time I have seen this statement made. Actually, one can jump
>into the lexical range of a DO statement, provided one has jumped out of the
>same DO. This is the old concept of "extended range" of a DO. The newer
>terminology is: one is permitted to jump into an "active" do (one currently
>being executed), and jumping out of a DO loop does not "inactivate" it. I
>checked this information against a recent vendor-supplied manual, not against
>the ANSI standard, but my recollection is that the ANSI standard permits the
>above (i.e. it is not a vendor extension).

It IS a vendor extension. The ANSI document (page A-2 item 7 line 40)
states this unequiviocally.

"This standard does not permit a transfer of control into the range of
a DO loop from outside the range. The range of a DO loop may be
entered only by the execution of a DO statement. ANSI x3.9-1966
permitted transfer of control into the range of a DO loop under
certain conditions. This involved the concept referred to as "extended
range of a DO".

f77's failure to be 100% f66 compliant is why the f88 committee went
to great lengths to not make the same mistake. Hence all f77 compliant
programs are f88 complaint.
Keith H. Bierman
It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus