Roger Glover wrote:
> And William Clodius of Los Alamos, whose ".ANDTHEN."
> suggestion you ridiculed above, may know a thing or two about
> nuclear codes himself. He can certainly speak for himself on
> this issue, but, based on my observations of him in this forum
> and elsewhere, I doubt he is a big fan of implicit typing.
I have never written a sefety critical code, fortuneately, as I do not
consider myself a good programmer. I have thought a lot about programming
languages, but that is a different issue.
As to typing and languages, I am not a big fan fo implicit typing, but I am
also not a fan of required explicit typing, I find that implicit typing is
error prone (although other aspects of Fortran cause more errors) while
explicit typing clutters the code needlessly, in many cases hurting
legibility and/or prototyping capability. I suspect that I would prefer a
form of inferred typing in which all dummy arguments are explictly typed, but
local arguments types can be statically infered from their first useage
(which must be statically checkable to be an assignment or the equivalent of
an INTENT(OUT) argument in Fortran), and cannot be subsequently used in a
manner inconsistent with that definition.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|