Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!chidsey
From: chidsey@smoke.BRL.MIL (Irving Chidsey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Implied do-loop statement, for the next FORTRAN?
Message-ID: <12285@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 5 Mar 90 13:19:55 GMT
References: <2044.25efa542@admdev.cut.oz>
Reply-To: chidsey@brl.arpa (Irving Chidsey (INF) <chidsey>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 38

In article <2044.25efa542@admdev.cut.oz> Clifton_RL@admdev.cut.oz writes:
<IMPLIED DO-LOOP STATEMENT
<
<Currently, Fortran requires the first character in a statement
<to be alpha.  If we allowed an open-bracket character "(" we
<could use the implied do-loop construction.  For example:
<
<	(((C(I,J)=A(I,K)*B(K,J) ,K=1,M) ,I=1,M) ,J=1,M)
<
<This clear statement would replace the familiar clutter of:
<
<	DO J etc
<	 DO I etc
<	  DO K etc
<	   C(I,J)= etc
<	  ENDDO
<	 ENDDO
<	ENDDO
<	    -plus blank lines an apologetic explanation...
<
<
<How about it?

How about:

      Do (((C(I,J)=A(I,K)*B(K,J),K=1,M),I=1,M),K=1,M)

Which would be similar to the implied do in IO statements.

An occasaional word helps the human reader as well as the compiler.

							Irv

-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
			Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>