How to solve the same numerical Problem in 7 different Programming Languages

163

Nope, not at all.

Under the proposed change, the following standard conforming code per current standard itself becomes nonconformant:

       DATA I/42/
       END

and the rest of the code is irrelevant.

With the proposed change, the subprogram as shown above will instead need to be

       SUBROUTINE FOO
       IMPLICIT INTEGER(I-N)
       DATA I/42/
       INTEGER I
       PRINT *, I
       END
       CALL FOO
       END

to behave the same as per current standard. The point then remains: instead of forcing everyone else to introduce implicit none, “they” per @mecej4 “fame” need to introduce an IMPLICIT statement or stick with a processor conformant to a prior standard revision.

And section 8.6.7 verbiage on DATA statement needs no change.

Since the proposed one sentence change only impacts implicit mapping, not implicit typing which remains with this one sentence change. This is a crucial aspect to keep in mind.

1 Like