(j3.2006) finalizer infelicity

Aleksandar Donev donev1
Wed Nov 21 14:24:53 EST 2007

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 11:11, Michael Ingrassia wrote:
> do our semantics really require us to call a
> finalizer ([59:5] "it is called") when that
> finalizer could not have been called explicitly ? ?Do they forbid us
> to bind such finalizers?
I agree with Michael that this seems ill-defined. Maybe this again points out 
to the conclusion that Jim's objections also raised: The dummies should be 
required to be assumed-shape arrays. Or better, the whole non-elemental 
finalizer business should be deleted. I am not even kidding :-\

More information about the J3 mailing list