Hi Joe,
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you really want to
> > *disable* implicit none? what is wrong with it?
> Oops, the 2nd sentence above is wrong. I meant to say that the compiler
> flags should set the default implicit to "implicit none".
You can certainly do this and I think everybody would applaud you for doing
it. My suggestion would be though that if you want to volunteer to do it
that you get a big pot of coffee since I have tried it several times and
almost driven myself mad going through some of the old Perlman code that is
in there. The problem is that you go through and update a chunk of stuff,
make a mistake making something int instead of real or vice versa and then
all the test cases fail and you don't know why.
Thus I would suggest doing this one subroutine at a time as and when you
have time. In fact I would encourage everyone to always update any
subroutines that don't have implicit none when they come across them. Just
make sure you run all the test cases since it can be very easy to make a
mistake and not realize it.
All the best
Ross
/\
\/
|\oss Walker
| Assistant Research Professor |
| San Diego Supercomputer Center |
| Tel: +1 858 822 0854 | EMail:- ross.rosswalker.co.uk |
|
http://www.rosswalker.co.uk | PGP Key available on request |
Note: Electronic Mail is not secure, has no guarantee of delivery, may not
be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues.
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Mar 27 2009 - 01:19:34 PDT
