(j3.2006) Finalization ordering question

[Aleksandar Donev]

Jim Xia wrote:
> That's how the standard defines the sequence of finalizations of an 
> array of objects of extended type.  I wouldn't think of "efficiency" as 
> an issue when finalizations are involved.
Sure, but this does mean we should have rules that require 
less-efficient code! Bill's suggested reordering makes sense to me, in 
fact, that is how I would have implemented it: finalize one element 
completely and then move on to the next one (after all, an array is just 
a collection of scalars and requiring a specific order of the elements 
seems contrary to what we usually do). There may be some other reason 
why things are written the way they are...Malcolm or Kurt would know :-)
Aleks