Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)

Gary L. Scott wrote in message <11lo8aqb3nhhn6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
>Edward N Bromhead wrote:

>> The point of my reply was that the status quo provides equally for those who
>> like implicit typing, and those who don't, so that to change the standard to
>> effectively negate previous standards seems to me to be perverse. I wasn't
>> arguing for the abolition of IMPLICIT NONE, only against making it the
>> standard.
>>
>
>It is absolutely perverse to insist on a proven bad standard of behavior
>for a programming language. It is utterly stupid to force a programmer
>to SPECIFY that he DOES NOT want stupid behavior (IMPLICIT NONE).

Well said !

To satisfy those who perhaps want to retain default typing,
a new statement could be introduced into the standard :-
IMPLICIT BUGS ;^)
that would provide the appropriate compiler action.
For those who want to continue to use external procedures
(the old way, without interface blocks) this could be made available
by another new statement :-
IMPLICIT MOREBUGS ;^)

Seriously, however, isn't it amazing that dusty decks -- supposedly
running happily for years -- turn up compile errors when
recompiled with a compiler that performs more checking than
previously.

>> Regards
>> Eddie B.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: can someone help me how to compile this program??
    ... doesn't the fact that all stream get flushed at program termination ... specifically addressed in the standard doesn't seem to bother them at all. ... Which implies fflush() can, in this situation, cause the ... There *is* an implicit fflush() of all output streams here? ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Symbols in function return specifiers
    ... junk if the standard says so. ... prefix interpreted in the IMPLICIT context of the function? ... parameters, if any, specified by a previous declaration in the same ... expression is typed by the implicit typing rules, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
    ... > by shrinking the market by nannying other programmers ... Another may be the availability of free compilers ... Suppose the standard dictates that implicit none is now mandatory. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
    ... You always have to decide which compiler switches to apply anyway. ... you can have your own standard without invalidating existing code. ... Implicit none is the more disciplined approach, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
    ... And the victims range from the most novice to the most expert (who despite using IMPLICIT NONE in his own code often has to debug other, lesser, code.) ... It has to do with pragmatism, after 33 years of Fortran experience. ... by shrinking the market by nannying other programmers with whom you simply disagree. ... The compilers will always do so no matter what the standard says. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)