(j3.2006) Syntax for Proposal 8 (Was: US-01, US-03, US-08. US-14)

[Craig Dedo]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org]

> On Behalf Of Van Snyder

> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 13:49

> To: j3

> Subject: (j3.2006) US-01, US-03, US-08. US-14

> 

> US proposals 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12 and 14 were approved as work items at Delft.

 

            <snip>

> We need a proposal for syntax for proposal 8.

> 

> What are preferences for syntax?

> 

> IMPLICIT NOEXTERNAL

> IMPLICIT, EXTERNAL :: NONE

> EXTERNAL, NOIMPLICIT

            FWIW, here is what I think.

 

            I definitely do NOT like option 3.  I firmly believe that good syntax is
important for proper understanding and needs to follow as much as possible the patterns
that have already been made by similar constructs or concepts.  Option 3 departs from the
existing syntax for other cases of IMPLICIT.

 

            Of options 1 and 2, I have a slight preference for option 2 but I could
cheerfully  support option 1.  Both of these parallel existing declarations for IMPLICIT.

 

Sincerely,

Craig T. Dedo

17130 W. Burleigh Place

P. O. Box 423                         Mobile Phone:  (414) 412-5869

Brookfield, WI   53008-0423    E-mail:  < <mailto:craig at ctdedo.com> craig at ctdedo.com>

USA

Linked-In:   <http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdedo> http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdedo

 

Sincerely,

Craig T. Dedo

17130 W. Burleigh Place

P. O. Box 423                         Mobile Phone:  (414) 412-5869

Brookfield, WI   53008-0423    E-mail:  <craig at ctdedo.com>

USA

Linked-In:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdedo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20130816/73038cb6/attachment.html