From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Oct 28 05:19:15 2014
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 A93A3358794; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:19:15 +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 AE67A35877B
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:19:11 +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 s9S4JB0t018999
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:19:14 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <94FED6AA80DB4EA4A5183BA8886DFA11@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20141027201943.09E1A3582F9@www.open-std.org><20141028005636.2C7383587BC@www.open-std.org> <20141028030432.1C80A358771@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20141028030432.1C80A358771@www.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5352) (j3.2006)  From a colleague
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:19:05 +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 problem

There is no problem.

>He didn't write that he was getting diagnostics.  He wrote that he "just
>learned that at least some compilers will no longer support the
>arithmetic IF statement."

So at best hearsay, at worst completely made up.  I suspect a chain of chinese 
whispers and misunderstandings.

Someone claiming that someone says that someone says that someone won't support 
something at some time in the unspecified future is no evidence at all.

>I agree arithmetic IF shouldn't be used NOW, but giving the advice that
>"you should never use it" requires the owner of fifty-year-old code
>(that works extremely well) to have a time machine to return to 1966 and
>advise against it.

Oh, so now it's F66 code not F77 code.

I look forward to your proposal to reintroduce Hollerith constants, the extended 
range of the DO loop, etc.

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