From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Mar 17 11:21:14 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 D16E23587A8; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:21:14 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 4799 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:21:14 CET Received: from out2-srv1.flexfilter.nl (out2-srv1.flexfilter.nl [62.84.244.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3FE357127 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:21:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from [89.18.180.60] (helo=mail.antivirus.flexwebhosting.nl) by srv1a.flexfilter.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1agTng-0001Zx-N0; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:01:10 +0100 Received: from srv2059.flexwebhosting.nl ([89.18.176.59]) by mail.antivirus.flexwebhosting.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.85_2) (envelope-from ) id 1agTnp-0000MI-75; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:01:09 +0100 Received: from [145.129.230.224] (helo=PCForcheck) by srv2059.flexwebhosting.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1agToY-0003yN-Cp; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:01:55 +0100 From: To: "'Cohen Malcolm'" , "'WG5'" References: <20160314163910.3E1A035730E@www.open-std.org><20160315002027.D448E3582CC@www.open-std.org><20160315200858.1DA5E3587BB@www.open-std.org><20160316075309.C2B803571CA@www.open-std.org> <20160316131948.4819C357127@www.open-std.org> <20160317055338.21A253584A2@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20160317055338.21A253584A2@www.open-std.org> Subject: RE: (SC22WG5.5689) [ukfortran] (j3.2006) AW: RE: F08/C201 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:00:40 +0100 Message-ID: <004301d1802b$7ac2c970$70485c50$@forcheck.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIR5aKrjPa9s79ZzLCnWURK+Mv5bQLZBv7qAw6hpSYBC32HmwEau5SbAkg7/QSeidZUYA== Content-Language: nl X-Filter-ID: s0sct1PQhAABKnZB5plbIViX8Ok/cW3CCIXYGqQyNxdDBMjHO16K80oRNblReI11x5YB+7NnUQEm Uw8kSDgJq+V3quz5htJYRtr4z1TeBXCPRRXJko9GgtbPf7OBjHetCoupJqx6hgbOJpF7ztvRCHg9 i+nEmou2UMHgmE6z+uPpnAH3Z/yWJ/1UVv3cE79AaZ85lSFCp2LkciHHXEPKwcowz1FjPfjPqu7L Hib5e0jXYu/IcQJuWHlbnMOsg605bzCO8YxVCtBgKDv3hcHIFj3dKxLhoxcmaInYbR5vlqFoA0sH 5RuXt9lQ+PoQIRFd+Q3eyB0s4KAhdRuioya4MKuhWMfSXMWlmpTJy4rXq7B7OWB916F7XvSTXtp6 F31R2cSVRC3s1npMU8OWeSRWje8o39FPRDsbQBPfEovnWpUDJT/zM5h0c5URGlLLtrLKz35eyw6y RiTLngsHI1rdoiQQa/kroxoEmAO5nGjIz+46it93D1RlHvuNCj77mmUy6hUtQJQDQV/O5gc6V+uc MHAXQhc+EbmlTgBmmSAiVnZAg/Ac+sOWqiKDM3YCDteOeUa4enl7IWRD/OF2FGlxiHtzJzDXtW19 p+oSJq/sPNQwzWZQ8eBVA2PETSdeLeHR3NaFnKSGWVxLfoM7VpyPZvUnHQLcypSSeM2r6b3yIedj JhBGpVBaQMauayMDX6Ci X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@srv3a.flexfilter.nl X-Filter-Fingerprint: IFrWXGses7OKB5S5G8/dJRn/7L7+nnclbWGk7OJ1jHJA3cTUQ1R++keuE7RDJ8Kg3RbMLUalw1oC mj99/u+PoqoVy8a3lsStJtAvpObFX0Wok1JBYnOLzfRIhlEHQynLUpndEJ0YoaLytXXo8BMTaX2p Mk7LBarWD9Fj4R3eIu5cOy/3Wm9qfF/CZNvP/2Kowv61T+KDYyYtREgszdyFwv8IxCB3p/oCKvxr eyISh3JGb7OS5oVgiO+kDxZrVPLz3MmEGC2PrUKqLq5WmHK+Nw== X-Originating-IP: 89.18.180.60 X-SpamExperts-Domain: fxwrelaydummydomein.nl X-SpamExperts-Username: 89.18.180.60 Authentication-Results: flexfilter.nl; auth=pass smtp.auth=89.18.180.60@fxwrelaydummydomein.nl X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: ham X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.00) X-Recommended-Action: accept Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Thanks! This is what I expected. Cheers, -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org [mailto:owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org] Namens Cohen Malcolm Verzonden: donderdag 17 maart 2016 06:54 Aan: WG5 Onderwerp: (SC22WG5.5689) [ukfortran] (j3.2006) AW: RE: F08/C201 The way that the end statements are counted in and C201 excludes them from appearing as executable constructs is at best confusing, whether it is technically wrong or not. FWIW, on close examination I do think it probably is technically wrong, as the end statement (does not need "subroutine" - that is an optional keyword in this context) in the interface body in the BLOCK construct is indeed reached via executable-construct. Not that a compiler is likely to take that interpretation. This could be patched by modifying C201, but since this looks like a very confusing way of describing the grammer anyway, I would be more in favour of getting the end statements out of action-stmt and inserting them as necessary elsewhere, unless that turns out to be more difficult than it looks. We would certainly want to be very careful how we change this otherwise the chance of incidental BNF breakage would be quite high. Cheers, -----Original Message----- From: Robert Corbett Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:04 PM To: fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: Forcheck ; Bader, Reinhold ; 'WG5' Subject: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5686) (j3.2006) AW: RE: F08/C201 On 03/16/16 00:46, Bader, Reinhold wrote: > Hi Erik, > > my impression is that C201 only closes a hole that would otherwise > permit improper nesting of statements with respect to executable > constructs, e.g., > > block > ... > end subroutine > end block > > Cheers > Reinhold > You and Erik raise a fair point. Constraint C201 has the same effect on the syntax as would be achieved by deleting the alternatives /end-function-stmt/, /end-mp-subprogram-stmt/, /end-program-stmt/, and /end-subroutine-stmt/ from rule R214 (rule R215 of 16-007), which is the syntax definition of an /action-stmt/. I suspect that the intended purpose of including those alternatives is to indicate that those forms of END statements are executable constructs. That does not work, because none of the cases where one of those forms of END statements is produced by the grammar are derived (indirectly) from the syntax term /executable-construct/ because of the constraint. Robert Corbett _______________________________________________ ukfortran mailing list http://lists.accu.org/mailman/listinfo/ukfortran -- ........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.