J3/03-238 Date: August 19, 2003 To: J3 From: Matthijs van Waveren Subject: Interpretation JP-24 The WG5 interpretation subgroup requests J3 to reconsider the edit given in interpretation JP-24. This edit reads as follows: [127:29.5] Replace "" by "". We give below an example code that would be allowed by the proposed bnf as a single construct, but should not be. do 10 i=1,5 ! outer do 20 j=1,5 ! inner ... 10 continue ! shared The edit in Fortran 95 that would disallow above-mentioned code as a single construct reads as follows: [127:29.5] Replace "" by " and ". The corresponding edit in Fortran 2003 reads as follows: [168:10-11] Replace "" by " and ". Please find below an update of the interpretation. ===========================INTERPRETATION JP-24================================ NUMBER: JP-24 TITLE: The bnf term shared-term-do-construct KEYWORDS: DO, BNF DEFECT TYPE: Erratum STATUS: Passed by J3 letter ballot QUESTION: JP-24) In 8.1.4.2, second constraint below R833 states that: "The do-term-shared-stmt shall be identified with a label and all of the label-do-stmts of the shared-term-do-construct shall refer to the same label." This implies a label-do-stmts of the outer-most outer-shared- do-construct will permit not to refer to the same label, because shared-term-do-construct does not include outer-most outer- shared-do-construct. So the term "shared-term-do-construct" should be changed to "inner-share-do-construct and outer-shared-do-construct." DISCUSSION: There is a typographical error in the question - "8.1.4.2" should read "8.1.4.1.2". The following amplification of the question was provided at the August 2000 WG5 meeting: The present BNF does not preclude the following as a single construct: do 10 i=1,5 ! outer do 20 j=1,5 ! outer do 20 k=1,5 ! outer do 20 l=1,5 ! inner ... 20 continue ! shared ANSWER: Agreed. EDIT: [127:29.5] Replace "" by " and ". {The intention is to alter the second line of the second constraint following R833. The line numbering is awry in the F95 copy being used.} SUBMITTED BY: Japan HISTORY: 99-208 m150 Submitted 99-221 m150 Classified as Fortran 95 interpretation WG5-N1411 Aug-2000 Draft answer 02-131r1 m160 Passed unanimously by J3 meeting 03-197 m165 Passed by J3 letter ballot WG5-N1561 Request from WG5 to reconsider 03-238 m165 Passed unanimously by J3 meeting