Re: [AMBER-Developers] Goals for AMBER code format/style?

From: Gustavo Seabra <>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:19:38 +0000

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Joe Krahn <> wrote:
> It would be nice to have more stuff on the Wiki about code strictness and
> plans for the current code. Here are some of my suggestions.

Are we realy bringing the Wiki back? In this case, we would also need
to update a whole lot of stuff there... I'd volunteer to do it, but
I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with what's already there, what's
still valid, what is not, etc...

> Is AMBER still working towards implicit-none in all source files? It would
> be nice to disable the default implicit-none with compiler flags.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you really want to
*disable* implicit none? what is wrong with it?

> Is there any reason not to convert all of the common-block .h files into
> module files? It would be trivial to do a quick conversion by wrapping the
> existing header code, leaving the common blocks as they are, and working on
> removing them later.

I always thought the only reason they are still there is because no
one decided to tackle them directly... (until now? :-) )

> At least for Gnu make, it is useful to use $(MAKE) instead of 'make', partly
> because it allows a parallel-make, giving much faster build times on
> multi-processor machines. For example, replace:
>   cd dir; make xyz
> with:
>   $(MAKE) -C dir xyz
> However, I don't know if $(MAKE) and the '-C' flag are standard for BSD make
> as well.

I believe this is the same as the common-block --> module issue...
just a matter of people getting to it. Many makefiles are old and
haven't been touched for a long time. Furthermore, there's always the
idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it..." and we just learn to live
with it :-(


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Fri Mar 27 2009 - 01:16:53 PDT
Custom Search