From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed Oct 29 13:59:01 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) id h9TCx11P051610 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:59:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from bridgehead.lumc.nl (bridgehead.lumc.nl [145.88.210.235]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h9TCwpEt051605 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:58:56 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from E.W.Kruyt@lumc.nl) Received: by bridgehead.lumc.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:59:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Kruyt, E.W. (FYS)" To: "'Richard Maine'" Cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: RE: (SC22WG5.3042) Statement separation/termination Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:59:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk What if the continuation line starts with '&' ? For example, is the following allowed? x = 1.0 & &; Erik Kruyt > > > Dick Hendrickson writes: > > > The restriction just doesn't make > > > any sense. It doesn't follow from any of the preceding > discussion > > > in the interp. > > > > I think the restriction against a leading ";" was a reaction to > > some discussions, either on the J3 e-mail list or in > > comp.lang.fortran about what a null statement would be.... > > Exactly. But that applies *ONLY* to the initial line - not a > continuation line. That is exactly the point that I think was > overlooked by whoever wrote the words of the interp. On a > continuation line, in particularly with the example that Walt posted, > there is no potential "null statement" in sight anywhere. That's why > I claim that the restriction does not follow from the discussion. > > It is just a complete nonsequitur. The discussion would justify > having the restriction the way it is in Walt's f95 handbook, saying > that you can't have a leading ";" *EXCEPT* on a continuation line. > Indeed, that part of the restriction follows from the other text (and > thus probably should have been a note instead of normative text, > except that we didn't have notes in f90). > > Restricting against a leading ";" on a continuation line doesn't > follow from anything. > > I agree that allowing null statements adds extra "issues" (perhaps > ones we might want to address, but at least it isn't trivial and > might have impacts on some things like error detection). Deleting > the restriction against leading ";" on a continuation line doesn't > have any such issues. > > Recall that Walt's example was something like (not in front of me > right now, but the gist of it was) > > x = 1.0 & > ; y = 2.0 > > There is no null statement there. The ";" terminates the x=1.0 > statement...or it would if we didn't arbitrarily say that it was > disallowed. > > -- > Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; > Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. > | -- Mark Twain >