f77 bug - (nf)

[utzoo!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!warren]

#N:uicsovax:10900001:000:381
uicsovax!warren    Jun 18 21:51:00 1982

in f77 using a 0 as a continuation character in a common block is
treated differently than other symbols, 0 gives a syntax error
when placed in column 6, other symbols (i tried other digits) dont.

the way berkeley f77 parses common blocks declarations is not standard in
other respects, I have examples if anyone is interested.

this is an obscure, but nevertheless present bug.