Re: Array Constructors

Jugoslav Dujic <jdujic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Let me pile on Jan's questions: if it was decided that implied DO-loop
variables were different (IMO reasonably), why weren't they simply
dismissed from the "scope" of IMPLICIT NONE?

You have left the realm of questions that I can meaningfully answer. It
isn't as though I was there. The conflict in question arose in f77 and
earlier. Implicit none wasn't standardized until f90, but it followed
earlier practice, and I wasn't there for f90 either. So anything I could
say would be nothing but speculation. And I don't feel that I have any
spectacularly good speculation either.

The best I could say is that it doesn't seem consistent with the notion
of implicit none. There are lots of things that don't "need" declaring.
With implicit none, you are saying that you want to make all the
declarations explicit, whether they were needed or not.

But don't expect any fine detailed analysis of the exact arguments made
at the time. I don't have any such thing. I rather doubt than anyone
else does either. If you ask for my guess, I'd guess that it didn't even
come up - that implicit none was standardized as adoption of existing
practice.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
.