Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: "James Van Buskirk" <not_valid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:36:29 -0600
"Gary L. Scott" <garyscott@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11ln80341kkhtbd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> IMPLICIT NONE should finally be made default beginning at F2k8.
> Compiler switches can be specified to get the older behavior. There is
> absolutely no good reason to continue this way.
But isn't it already as of f90? I mean to say that in f90
programming, almost all the code is in modules, and typically
one puts an implicit none statement after all the use
statements in the module. All the module procedures accordingly
inherit the implicit none state from their host module which
must be overridden with implicit statements in each module
procedure if (as is sometimes the case) implicit typing is
actually desired for the given procedure.
--
write(*,*) transfer((/17.392111325966148d0,6.5794487871554595D-85, &
6.0134700243160014d-154/),(/'x'/)); end
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: Gary L. Scott
- Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- References:
- IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: Gary L. Scott
- IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- Prev by Date: Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- Next by Date: Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- Previous by thread: Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- Next by thread: Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|