From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d89b08801f2aacae
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-02 11:50:00 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail
From: Dan Nagle <dnagle@erols.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost?
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 14:48:16 -0400
Organization: Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.
Message-ID: <oc23du0f8odeor9072kfrs3679l5v4q1j2@4ax.com>
References: <Xns9200929868B11derekknosofcouk@62.253.162.107>
 <3CCEB246.9090009@worldnet.att.net>
 <Xns9200B524E1781derekknosofcouk@62.253.162.109>
 <slrnactqh7.2qr.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <slrnacts3r.2qr.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <aamua0$hnd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <uwuuouuwi.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <3CCFFB7F.B8080F7A@despammed.com> <3CD1608B.A6336379@despammed.com>
 <3CD16D9E.912B1659@lmtas.lmco.com>
 <slrnad313f.99k.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZnT1HNGc2tVHff2CHtCqjRNskEa5BJPqe2d1uNLLS/214hITiQEGk8
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 May 2002 18:49:20 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23442
Date: 2002-05-02T18:49:20+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello,

Better, use the Mil-Std-1753 (sp?) implicit none statement.

De facto standard due to the necessity of the military market.

-- 
Cheers!

Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.

On Thu, 2 May 2002 18:24:48 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol
<randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 May 2002 11:47:26 -0500, Gary Scott wrote:
>> 
>> That would have been FORTRAN 77.  Hardly the same results as a
>> comparison with Fortran 95, which nearly every current compiler is (not
>> that if you restricted yourself to the FORTRAN 77 subset of Fortran 95,
>> you may get the same results, but that would not be a wise thing to do).
>
>FORTRAN 77 is almost beyond weak typed language so I have used IMPLICIT
>LOGICAL (A-Z) in every subroutine/function so that any variable not
>defined by me becomes a boolean variable and thus in almost all cases
>will give an error at compilation.
>
>Preben