 |
 |
> >> > Of course, old code should not break. What about expanding IMPLICIT > >> > NONE? For example: IMPLICIT NOTYPE, NOKIND (NONE being an alias for > >> > NOTYPE). This could be expanded more later if needed. It would also be > >> > backwards compatible with old code. > >> > >> Yes and no. Old code would need the insertion of IMPLICIT NOTYPE ... > > > > As now, if there is no IMPLICIT statement at all, the Fortran77 rules > > apply. > > In the context of CMPLX, and to be "backwards compatible with old code", > old code would need IMPLICIT NOTYPE IMPLICIT NOTYPE would mean "no implicit rules for type declarations". Since this is all IMPLICIT does now, IMPLICIT NONE means the same thing. Old Fortran 77 rules would be IMPLICIT TYPE, i.e. "apply implicit typing rules". So backwards compatibility would actually need IMPLICIT TYPE, but of course for real compatibility this should be the default.