Re: Scope of implicit none
- From: Gary Scott <garylscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:09:26 -0500
dpb wrote:
Gary Scott wrote:Of course, that is a natural solution. I'd still prefer the default to be "implicit none". However, unless it is standardized, there isn't even a requirement for a compiler to provide such a switch. But F90 was a lost opportunity to do it right.
...
Not really, because they could have retained implicit typing rules as they were for fixed form source. It was a natural to introduce free form source with implicit none as the default.
At the cost of introducing another dichotomy of remembering the differing rules.
Seems to me this is one that fits the compiler switch as user-selectable as a solution...
--
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net
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
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
.
- References:
- Scope of implicit none
- From: Arjen Markus
- Re: Scope of implicit none
- From: Cirilo S. Bresolin
- Re: Scope of implicit none
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: Scope of implicit none
- From: Arjen Markus
- Re: Scope of implicit none
- From: GaryScott
- Re: Scope of implicit none
- From: Arjen Markus
- Re: Scope of implicit none
- From: Gary Scott
- Re: Scope of implicit none
- From: dpb
- Scope of implicit none
- Prev by Date: Re: Scope of implicit none
- Next by Date: Re: segmentation fault
- Previous by thread: Re: Scope of implicit none
- Next by thread: Compilation order (USE assocs)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|