(j3.2006) finalizer infelicity

[Michael Ingrassia]

>If you 
>declare the dummy as explicit-shape, expect a "not-so-good-programmer"  
>hat and a chair in the corner facing the wall.

May I also expect a "not-so-good-programming-language-standard" hat
with the standard joining the programmer in the corner ?  Some users
might hope for a language where inappropriate finalizers, like finalizers
of a different rank, just don't get called.

Anyway, just to be clear, in the code I gave with the extra line
	TYPE(Q) :: X1(1)
in subroutine R,  I hope we can all agree
that it's not standard conforming.  I can live with the programmer
wearing the funny hat when there's no bad call, just an explicit shape dummy
in the finalizer.
 

	--Michael I.