Flow-control structures: Difference between revisions

Since Algol in the 1960s it has been possible to define a routine within a larger routine that has access to all the context of the larger routine and so can be a convenient service routine for it, but Fortran does not allow a subroutine (or function) to be defined within a larger subroutine, except for the arithmetic statement function. One must write separate subroutines and struggle over providing access to context via COMMON and parameters. However, F90 allows a subroutine (or function) to use the CONTAINS feature, after which such a contained routine may be placed. Alas, it may not itself invoke CONTAINS even though Algol allows nesting as desired. And oddly, the contained routine must be at the ''end'' of the containing routine. So much for definition before usage. With such a facility, the possibility arises of perpetrating a GO TO from a contained routine to somewhere in its parent, however the F90 compilers are required to disallow access to outside labels, even those of FORMAT statements - rather a pity for that. Such escapes would have to copy whatever de-allocation steps were needed for a normal exit, which is simple enough on a stack-oriented design such as the B6700. However, its Algol compiler rejected attempts to jump from one routine ''into'' another (!) with the message "Bad GOTO. Too bad." Assembler programmers can do what they want, but for once, Fortran's designers show some restraint.