# Separation of declaration and initiation of variables

**URL:** <https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/separation-of-declaration-and-initiation-of-variables/3685>\
**Category:** Help\
**Created:** [June 7, 2022, 2:21am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/separation-of-declaration-and-initiation-of-variables/3685 "2022-06-07T02:21:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FortranFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@FortranFan](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/FortranFan)\
**Post date:** [June 7, 2022, 9:44pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/separation-of-declaration-and-initiation-of-variables/3685/11 "2022-06-07T21:44:13Z")

</div>

> [@msz59](#):
>
> … nobody seems to contest implicit save.

@msz59 , “nobody” is entirely inaccurate, but the number of people who contest is low but I have long been among the few who have been trying to find a way to address this in the language standard. I have posted a lot on online forums on this.

See the latest comment [**here**](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/how-to-solve-the-same-numerical-problem-in-7-different-programming-languages/3548/168) where I even indicate this is an aspect where I will be entirely supportive of breaking the `backward compatibility` position with the language standard. For the benefits of doing so will far exceed the consequences of breaking some existing code. On the latter, I even contest the existence of any code that employs the `implicit save` feature on purpose. So I see little value in holding on to it. Mistakes happen, on this I think the overall community should bear the cost and move on by ridding the language of this abominable semantics.

---

_[View the full topic](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/separation-of-declaration-and-initiation-of-variables/3685)._