Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!fatcity!khb
From: khb@fatcity.Sun.COM (fatcity)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: f8x rule (was DO loops anyone)
Keywords: as in f77
Message-ID: <94651@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 17 Mar 89 23:28:35 GMT
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 28

Richard Maine reccently suggested that f88 (to use the wg5 term :>)
compilers will be required to diagnose anything that is illegal.

I quote, from version 111 of the draft (to be voted on in May):

"
Note that a standard-conforming program must not use any forms or
relationships that are prohibited by this standard, but a
standard-conforming processor may allow such forms and relationships
if they do not change the proper interpretation of a standard
conforming program. For example, a standard conforming processor may
allow a nonstandard data type

"

This is from page 1-2 of version 111.

I do not know of any counter-example to suggest otherwise.

It makes perfect sense to allow useful extensions. I (personally)
would be happier if vendor's don't allow strange do-loop nesting
simply because it would not invalidate their compiler's f88 (wg5 :>)
compliance. 

kbierman@sun.com
Tactical Engineering
Keith H. Bierman
It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus