> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > James Giles wrote:
> >
> >> 4. provide a way to write code that doesn't need KIND
> >> specifiers on literals in the first place.
> >
> > Unfortunately, Fortran still allows procedures with implicit interface.
> > So how does the literal get the right kind to go with the dummy argument?
>
> The same way it gets it now: the user is required to insure the
> match. You response is hardly even worth of notice.
Maybe something more than hand waving would be in order here. If one
doesn't put the kind type parameter on the literal -- which is after
all what James is advocating -- how does the user "insure the match?"
An explanation is far more illuminating than a gratuitous insult.
--
Van Snyder | What fraction of Americans believe
[log in to unmask] | Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved
by JPL, CalTech, NASA, Sean O'Keefe, George Bush, the Pope, or anybody else.
|