(j3.2006) Finalization ordering question
Tue Oct 23 17:58:05 EDT 2007
Jim Xia wrote:
> > There remains the question of what the committee wants to do
> about it
> > now. I see three possibilities:
> > a. Leave the ordering as it stands.
> > b. Completely remove that part of the ordering. This could be done
> > by removing "(3)" and making what is now step (3) a part of step (2)
> > effect, a statement that the parent component is one of the components
> > covered by step (2)].
> > c. The ordering between extended components and parent components
> > could be interpreted (and textually clarified) to apply on a per
> > basis. [I.e., the extended components of an element are to be
> > before the parent component of that element, but not necessarily before
> > the parent components of other elements.]
> > My first choice would be (b), but I would find (c) acceptable.
> Sorry Kurt, you've just got a no vote from me. It's too late to
> change rules now after we've implemented them all. IMHO the current
> text of the finalization process is clear and unambiguous.
So, when you say that the rules are clear, I assume you mean that the
parent component finalizer is called for the whole base array, not
> The sequence of the actions that should take place during a
> finalization is well defined. Although I don't like them personally,
> I don't see a need to give this topic a respin. As to the issue of
> performance in finalization process, where I believe this thread of
> arguments was originated from, I think one needs to look at the whole
> picture of the finalizer rather than focusing on the specific ordering
> requirements. I maintain my opinion that the real performance buggers
> with regard to finalization are not from how the finalizations are
> processed, but rather how much related code a programmer has to write
> in order to use them safely and effectively (e.g. a programmer has to
> write (almost certain the elemental) defined assignment, and also a
> function that overrides the structure constructor). If there is
> anything to consider by the committee at this point, I'd rather prefer
> reconsidering the ramifications of interp F03/062 -- finalization for
> array constructors.
> Jim Xia
> XL Fortran Compiler Testing
> IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave.
> Phone (905) 413-3444 Tie-line 969-3444
> D2/NAH/8200 /MKM
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
Bill Long longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120
More information about the J3