Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: "Gary L. Scott" <garyscott@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:53:32 -0500
Gordon Sande wrote:
On 2005-10-23 11:36:45 -0300, "Gary L. Scott" <garyscott@xxxxxxx> said:
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.
If a chain saw just removed a leg above the knee (gun shot to the foot does not seems to be your complaint level!) you could always try to set the default options for your copy of your compiler to use the "assume implicit none" option that all respectable compilers offer. (I know - you also need to get the rest of your troops to do likewise.)
I use a preprocessor that issues a wry message about the absent implicit none so I am in your camp but this is the real world. It ain't very likely even if it is very sensible.
But it doesn't even effect anybody in any significant negative way, just add a compiler switch on compilation, get the old behavior (if they must)...
--
Gary Scott mailto:garyscott@xxxxxxx
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org -OR- Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
Why are there two? God only knows.
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: Greg Lindahl
- Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- References:
- IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: Gary L. Scott
- Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: Gordon Sande
- IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- Prev by Date: Re: Calculating a program's run time
- 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
|