(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)

I do not think we should allow this.


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!

........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo. 

More information about the J3 mailing list