(j3.2006) implicit none ordering

Cohen Malcolm malcolm
Thu Nov 12 02:23:09 EST 2015


<<<
We have a constraint

? C590  (R563) If IMPLICIT NONE is specified in a scoping unit, it shall 
precede any PARAMETER statements that appear in the scoping unit. No more 
than one IMPLICIT NONE statement shall appear in a scoping unit.

Which leads to comparison with Table 2.1 in 2.3.2 Statement ordering (page 
33 in 15-007r2).

Is the IMPLICIT NONE in C590 and in Table 2.1 only the version where there 
is no <implicit-none-spec>?
>>>

No, they are both "the IMPLICIT NONE statement".

Maybe C590 could be reworded "If the IMPLICIT NONE statement appears in a 
scoping unit, ...".

<<<
   For example, is this allowed:

PARAMETER (x = 1.23)
IMPLICIT NONE (EXTERNAL)
>>>

I do not think we should allow this.

<<<
Separately,

1) Could the right middle box in Table 2.1 (Derived-type definitions ? and 
statement function statements) be shortened  by replacing some of the 
current entries with ?specification constructs??
>>>

Something should be done, not just here but also elsewhere, as we have 
deleted the syntax term "specification statement" so there is no unambiguous 
definition of it.

<<<
2) Is the table correct, since executable constructs include BLOCK 
constructs, which can contain specification statements?
>>>

That bit seems ok, if a bit overly simplified.  I don't see any obvious way 
to improve it.

I hope people are not getting too early a start on reading for February, 
since there will be a new 007 for that, which will contain lots of extra 
typos and mistakes in any bits you have already read!

Cheers,
-- 
........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo. 




More information about the J3 mailing list