Robin wrote:
>
> Why would you want to use this statement anyway?
> It's more typing than
> CHARACTER (*) :: a, b
>
I agree entirely with your remark. But I wanted to clarify that point.
I posted the question to the J3 mailing list and Malcolm Cohen
confirmed that IMPLICIT CHARACTER(*) is indeed standard conforming.
Thus, all the compilers that reject the test program have a bug!
It should be noted also that an explicit interface is not required
for character dummy arguments having a length of (*). Consequently,
the test program is standard conforming.
Thanks for everyone who responded!
Best regards,
Jean Vezina
|