[J3] Consideration of Paper 18-242 at Meeting 218 (Was: 18-242)

[Steidel, Jon L]

Bill Long wrote:

   I think Vipul is getting close to a workable compromise. 

    Just deciding to make the loop variable a construct entity for the existing DO loop is a non-starter.  If this is wanted, a NEW DO     
   form is needed.  The idea of reusing the existing DO CONCURRENT syntax (minus the token CONCURRENT) seems viable.  It 
   would allow

   DO ( i=1:n, j=1:m)
    …
   END DO

   which is a shorthand for 

   DO I=1,n
     DO j=1,m
      …
     END DO
   END DO


If we introduce syntax that is a shorthand way of combining two or more loops in a single DO statement, we need to define the behavior (or constrain the use) of CYCLE and EXIT statements inside such a construct.

-jon