(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5686) AW: RE: [ukfortran] F08/C201

[Robert Corbett]

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