From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Dec 24 10:00:05 2013
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id ECE8D3582F2; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:00:04 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CC1358253
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:00:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBO8xw6m073826
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:00:00 GMT
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <107078E88656467281A6713BA496099B@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "sc22wg5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20131126013542.D88A93582CC@www.open-std.org><20131220171849.090F03582F4@www.open-std.org><20131222004843.861D635835A@www.open-std.org><1387678359.20328.7.camel@van-laptop><20131222162956.B9CCF3583E4@www.open-std.org> <20131223195610.E662635830E@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131223195610.E662635830E@www.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5168) (j3.2006)    [ Draft corrigendum 3]
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 17:59:59 +0900
Organization: =?UTF-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="UTF-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

...
>The argument is that computed GO TO ought to be replaced by SELECT CASE.
>Well, the code is a coroutine.

I think this is precisely the case when computed GOTO is superior to SELECT 
CASE.

>I'm afraid to make a massive reorganization of it, for fear that it will
>be ten years before we discover the bugs thereby introduced.

Any reorganised version would almost certainly not be better-structured, and 
might well be significantly worse-structured.  I would leave it alone if I were 
you!

>Are there still any structuring engines available?

NAG used to sell one, but not at the moment.  I don't think it would have helped 
with this particular problem anyway though.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.