Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: "Gary L. Scott" <garyscott@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:40:48 -0500
Greg Lindahl wrote:
In article <11lnu2hqd5deb50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gary L. Scott <garyscott@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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)...
So the people building Fortran packages who don't understand either Fortran or the Makefile scheme can phone you up for free consulting, right?
If they're that incompetent, then they shouldn't be programming in the first place.
I think IMPLICIT NONE is a great feature, and I use it on all the code I write. But there's a reason why compilers don't default to having it on already.
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 .
- 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+/-)