(j3.2006) finalizer infelicity

[Aleksandar Donev]

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 14:17, Bill Long wrote:

> We should not, buy the interp process,
> introduce new constraints that turn conforming programs into
> non-conforming programs. ?Interps are for interpretations of what the
> standard means.
Maybe I am misunderstanding something here. Does the standard explicitly say 
this program is non-conforming or does that fall out of "oops, the standard 
does not provide an interpretation of this program"? If the latter, I find it 
much less convincing that we "changed our mind", rather, we lost our mind to 
begin with.

The thing Mike was picking a fight with ws the sentence saying the finalizer 
will be invoked (even though the shapes do not agree). Why is fixing this 
statement to properly account for shape mismatch outside the interp process. 
Or do you honestly believe someone thought about this and decided only rank-1 
arrays of length 2 of type T are allowed, but any size rank-2 arrays are. 
Bizzare!

Aleks