From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Mar 16 08:53:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 82B62358793; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:53:09 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 395 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:53:08 CET Received: from postout1.mail.lrz.de (postout1.mail.lrz.de [129.187.255.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52127356673 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:53:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from lxmhs51.srv.lrz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postout1.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3qQ3TM0ytdzySl; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:46:31 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: postout.lrz.de (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=lrz.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lrz.de; h= mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to:references :message-id:date:date:subject:subject:from:from:received :received:received:received; s=postout; t=1458114390; bh=od9boVC KlnfdB3kJvS+PuxqdgMVBKoBa86SJ9bAKF+o=; b=yleWa11hWBA6Q+FvnkdHzA6 xJ9h7+b8qXL0nNovAYsQmKVEcE+1KnlPRAu/CR3WMSTTzxp0tW8DiJxZDehBsckS kL+Mdb47C+UvGbp1qdF7MtAL0vchxFGByLSC/iXnDvOBLHPTvOA+mR4rHAM6bG2l T0Zfqj2galB4DU07Cqwfo2PTbKUdaBhec7roSrsuGpjDMOeBgYM8HsH0RkjR63Pr zXg6ElG+UbWuJZmZEfWxycw6GlE7bljvaNfCbyObvhsnPratA5LX5lEXKMnrN1hW CYcclRukhSDx+XiTyyYmlb0hJ370n9xhXc7r3e8+AEfvZB9sNXZ3MtoT4WX0M2g= = X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lrz.de in lxmhs51.srv.lrz.de X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.885 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LRZ_DATE_TZ_0000=0.001, LRZ_DKIM_DESTROY_MTA=0.001, LRZ_DMARC_LRZ_FAIL=0.001, LRZ_DMARC_OVERWRITE=0.001, LRZ_ENVFROM_LRZ_S=0.001, LRZ_FROM_AP_PHRASE=0.001, LRZ_FROM_LRZ_S=0.001, LRZ_FROM_PHRASE=0.001, LRZ_FROM_PRE_SUR_ADDR=0.001, LRZ_FWD_MS_EX=0.001, LRZ_HAS_X_ORIG_IP=0.001, LRZ_MSGID_HL32=0.001, LRZ_MSGID_SPAM_68=0.001, LRZ_RCVD_MS_EX=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from postout1.mail.lrz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by lxmhs51.srv.lrz.de (lxmhs51.srv.lrz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 20024) with LMTP id J0SOs7o662lp; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:46:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from BADWLRZ-SWMBX04.ads.mwn.de (BADWLRZ-SWMBX04.ads.mwn.de [IPv6:2001:4ca0:0:108::160]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "BADWLRZ-SWMBX04", Issuer "BADWLRZ-SWMBX04" (not verified)) by postout1.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3qQ3TL1fZjzySD; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:46:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from BADWLRZ-SWMBX03.ads.mwn.de (2001:4ca0:0:108::159) by BADWLRZ-SWMBX04.ads.mwn.de (2001:4ca0:0:108::160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:46:29 +0100 Received: from BADWLRZ-SWMBX03.ads.mwn.de ([fe80::7c52:cc37:21a8:1966]) by BADWLRZ-SWMBX03.ads.mwn.de ([fe80::7c52:cc37:21a8:1966%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1156.000; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:46:29 +0100 From: "Bader, Reinhold" To: Forcheck , 'WG5' Subject: AW: (SC22WG5.5684) RE: [ukfortran] F08/C201 Thread-Topic: (SC22WG5.5684) RE: [ukfortran] F08/C201 Thread-Index: AQHRfvaN14VN1MuC4kKPEgyBULKmrp9bsWUg Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 07:46:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160314163910.3E1A035730E@www.open-std.org> <20160315002027.D448E3582CC@www.open-std.org> <20160315200858.1DA5E3587BB@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20160315200858.1DA5E3587BB@www.open-std.org> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [2001:4ca0:0:f000:c82f:cb36:67e1:341c] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Hi Erik,=20 my impression is that C201 only closes a hole that would otherwise permit i= mproper nesting of statements with respect to executable constructs, e.g., block ... end subroutine end block Cheers=20 Reinhold > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org [mailto:owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org] Im > Auftrag von Forcheck > Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. M=E4rz 2016 21:08 > An: 'Cohen Malcolm' ; 'WG5' > Betreff: (SC22WG5.5684) RE: [ukfortran] F08/C201 >=20 > Excuses for the typo. I know it compiles ok without the typo. > So C201 is incorrect? > Will it be corrected? > Do I have to ask for an interpretation? >=20 > Cheers, > Erik >=20 > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org [mailto:owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org] > Namens Cohen Malcolm > Verzonden: dinsdag 15 maart 2016 01:14 > Aan: WG5 > Onderwerp: (SC22WG5.5683) [ukfortran] F08/C201 >=20 > >Is the following code standard conforming? >=20 > No. >=20 > >C201 disallows the End Subroutine statement. Is this correct? >=20 > No. >=20 > >Subroutine sub1 > > Block > > Interface > > Subroutine sub > > End Subrouttine >=20 > Typo. >=20 > > End Interface > > End Block > >End >=20 > You should find that it compiles ok after correcting the typo. >=20 > Cheers, > -- > ........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo. >=20