Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: "David Jones" <dajxxx@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:14:50 +0100
Gary L. Scott wrote:
> 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.
I have top admit to being bored by this discussion of IMPLICIT NONE.
What we really need is some way of forcing explicit declaration of all
variables, subroutines and functions that might otherwise be imported
from modules without explicit declaration... this would at least give
IMPLICIT NONE a chance of catching all that a user would expect it to
catch.
I suggest SCOPE NONE. "Obviously" this should be made the default as
part of the standard ... that way we can achieve our ambition of
ensure that declaration sections of programs are at least twp hundred
and fifty three times as long as any exectable section. ;-)
David Jones
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: beliavsky
- Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- References:
- IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- From: Gary L. Scott
- IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- Prev by Date: Re: complex arithmetics
- Next by Date: Debug my program please.
- Previous by thread: Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- Next by thread: Re: IMPLICIT NONE (F2k8+/-)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|