# Repeat count for modern-style initializations **URL:** \ **Category:** Help\ **Created:** [July 25, 2024, 6:09pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/repeat-count-for-modern-style-initializations/8386 "2024-07-25T18:09:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![certik](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/certik/32/4_2.png) [@certik](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/certik)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2024, 3:10pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/repeat-count-for-modern-style-initializations/8386/21 "2024-07-27T15:10:23Z")
> [@FortranFan](#): > > > [@Machalot](#): > > > > with > > > > ```auto > > real :: var = 0.0 > > > > ``` > > That is unlikely a “common suggestions for modernization”. > > What might be `FORTRAN` code as > > ```auto > REAL VAR > DATA VAR /0.0/ > > ``` > > will require analysis to ascertain whether the **“implied SAVE”** is really necessary. The [**refactoring**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_refactoring) decision will depend on this analysis. > > More often than not, the **modern Fortran** replacement will be > > ```auto > real, parameter :: VAR = 0.0 > > ``` > > In a few cases, it might call for an object definition in the executable section of the code separate from the variable declaration: > > ```auto > .. > real :: var > .. > var = 0.0 > > ``` > > In a few unfortunate situations, the modern Fortran replacement may need to > > ` real, save :: var = 0.0 !<-- inform the reader explicitly the object has` Excellent, we ended up with the following warning in LFortran after a few iterations: ```console warning: Assuming implicit save attribute for variable declaration --> a.f90:2:9 | 2 | real :: var = 0.0 | ^^^^^^^^^ help: add explicit save attribute or parameter attribute or initialize in a separate statement ``` Which enumerates the same three cases that you mentioned. So this is good. ---
**Author:** ![RonShepard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@RonShepard](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/RonShepard)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2024, 6:35pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/repeat-count-for-modern-style-initializations/8386/22 "2024-07-27T18:35:07Z")
> [@certik](#): > > `[...] or initialize in a separate statement` Perhaps the term “initialize” is a little confusing here. In fortran, “initialize” usually means at compile/link time, not at run time. The third alternative in this situation is a run time assignment statement. That is “initialization” in a mathematical or algorithm context, but not in a fortran context. ---
**Author:** ![certik](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/certik/32/4_2.png) [@certik](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/certik)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2024, 9:27pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/repeat-count-for-modern-style-initializations/8386/23 "2024-07-27T21:27:52Z")
@RonShepard thanks for feedback. How would you formulate it, let’s say: “help: add explicit save attribute or parameter attribute or use a separate runtime assignment statement”? ---
**Author:** ![Harper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Harper](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/Harper)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2024, 2:57am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/repeat-count-for-modern-style-initializations/8386/24 "2024-07-28T02:57:10Z")
Last time I put `SAVE` among the specification statements of a subroutine to save everything savable that was declared there, lfortran gave me a lot of warnings I had hoped it wouldn’t, and I had to put things like `real,save::` in all the declarations of variables. Is there a chance that one day we could use something like `NO_SAVE` where we can now use `SAVE` if we wanted that effect? ---
**Author:** ![Machalot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ebca7d/32.png) [@Machalot](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/Machalot)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2024, 7:41am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/repeat-count-for-modern-style-initializations/8386/25 "2024-07-28T07:41:21Z")
> [@Harper](#): > > Is there a chance that one day we could use something like `NO_SAVE` where we can now use `SAVE` if we wanted that effect? I’ve always wondered why there’s no `nosave` to disable implicit `save`. ---
**Author:** ![certik](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/certik/32/4_2.png) [@certik](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/certik)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2024, 8:21am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/repeat-count-for-modern-style-initializations/8386/26 "2024-07-28T08:21:26Z")
> [@Harper](#): > > Last time I put `SAVE` among the specification statements of a subroutine to save everything savable that was declared there, lfortran gave me a lot of warnings I had hoped it wouldn’t, and I had to put things like `real,save::` in all the declarations of variables. That’s a bug, I just reported it: [Implement standalone `save` declaration line · Issue #4544 · lfortran/lfortran · GitHub](https://github.com/lfortran/lfortran/issues/4544), it should behave the same no matter where you put the explicit `save`. Update (12h later): and the bug is fixed. @Harper if you discover any other issue related to this, let us know. [Previous page](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/repeat-count-for-modern-style-initializations/8386.md?page=1)