Re: double confusion

Gordon Sande wrote:

(snip)

You could try to use an "IMPLICIT NONE" and see what happens.

Doesn't IMPLICIT have the same scoping problem as other declarations?


When you rely on defaults one of the problems is that you have
to know what the defaults actually are. In Fortran the default types
are integer and real according to the initial letter.

Fortran has no notion of file scope so the beginning is actually the
beginning of the main program. It would be much clearer if you had used
a PRGOGRAM statement. Then you would have gotten an obscure diagnostic
about two main programs which would have indicated that something was
not quite as you had guessed it to be.

-- glen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In the Shallow End
    ... You've never used fortran so obviously, again, you don't know what you are ... it wasn't extensions but the 2003 FORTRAN ... standard you were talking about. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: reading more data than the record size (RECL)
    ... end snip ... My old compiles also write and read correctly with the subroutine I ... This overhead is there to allow Fortran ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: In the Shallow End
    ... Not a problem on Fortran. ... I'm vindicated about how crappy M$ products and languages really are. ... Doesn't matter if they are not standard in other languages, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: In the Shallow End
    ... The best stuff was written on VMS for JSTARS and also the Starwars ... Are Windows backups hard? ... you aren't techically aware of what Fortran is. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: FORTRAN
    ... (snip about ENCODE AND DECODE perhaps?) ... did not include internal I/O, mixed-mode arithmetic, any way to detect end-of-file in a read, multiple integer precisions, etc. ... Many compilers had extensions for these, but they were not standard FORTRAN -- nor were the extensions consistent across the various vendors. ...
    (comp.lang.pl1)