(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