[J3] END statement

[Steve Lionel]

On 12/7/2022 9:21 AM, Brad Richardson via J3 wrote:

> In the majority of instances I would prefer that compilers be strictly
> standards conforming by default. In this instance, I think the
> interpretation of the code is pretty unambiguous. While I think I agree
> with Steve's assessment that it's not strictly in conformance with the
> current wording of the standard, I don't really see any technical
> reason to want the standard to forbid it. Does anybody know if the
> standard was intentionally written to forbid this, and if so why?

Strictly speaking, the standard doesn't forbid this, it's just outside 
the standard. To standardize this usage would require additional words 
in the text, which we are known to make mistakes in doing. Such an 
expansion doesn't add functionality, it's just another way of writing 
what can already be expressed. We tend to not be in favor of doing that.

To Ondrej's question, the committee isn't in the business of suggesting 
which extensions a vendor should or should not support. There are enough 
implementors on the committee or this email list that they can get a 
sense for what is or is not appropriate.

The behavior in question is what I call an accidental extension, created 
when a compiler developer either misunderstands the standard or fails to 
consider the possibility; the compilers I have worked on over the 
decades have had many of those. I'm definitely in the camp of treating 
these as errors and not extensions. When we find that multiple compilers 
misinterpret a subtlety, we often add a note, such as Malcolm suggested, 
to alert developers.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20221207/f645fc10/attachment.htm>