(j3.2006) types with finalizers defined in finalizer

[Van Snyder]

On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 23:24 -0700, Robert Corbett wrote:
> The following module appears to be standard-conforming
> 
>        MODULE MOD
>        CONTAINS
>          SUBROUTINE FINAL(X)
>            TYPE T
>              INTEGER I
>            CONTAINS
>              FINAL FINAL
>            END TYPE
>            TYPE(T) :: X
>          END SUBROUTINE
>        END
> 
> This is the only instance of which I am aware that allows
> a derived-type with a finalizer to be declared in a
> context other than the specification part of a module.
> It requires extra work on the part of the compiler to
> support a feature that is worthless.  Did I miss a
> prohibition in the standard?  Does anyone think there is
> a reason to allow such code in a standard-conforming
> program?  If so, what is that reason?
> 
> Bob Corbett
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

We didn't take up this question at meeting 185 (we had plenty without
it).

The example doesn't conform to the standard because the subroutine isn't
declared to be recursive.

I don't think it's necessary to write constraints

"C4xx (R4xx) If a type definition appears within a subprogram, the
      final procedure shall not be one defined by that subprogram.

"C4xx (R4xx) A final subroutine shall not be recursive."

-- 
Van Snyder                    |  What fraction of Americans believe 
Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov       |  Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or
disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, the President, or anybody else.