(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3969) question about deallocation

Aleksandar Donev donev1
Mon Mar 30 13:09:49 EDT 2009


On Sunday 29 March 2009 17:30, Malcolm Cohen wrote:

> > ? ? ? ALLOCATE(P(1))
> > ? ? ? Q => P(1)
> > ? ? ? DEALLOCATE(Q)
>
> Did we *really* say that in an official interpretation? ?Which one? ?
Yes, we did (I think you were there too). I know I submitted the interp, 
so perhaps grepping that would find it (is there a collected list of 
all the interps somewhere?). It was also decided that

allocate(p(1:2))
q=>p(2:1:-1) ! Reverse order
deallocate(q)

is not allowed.

That said, no doubt that in this particular example things are 
different. A part of an object is never the whole, by definition. For 
arrays, "whole array" is a much trickier issue, because as Malcolm said 
they often treated as sequencies of elements, especially in the "old" 
F77-style rules. Perhaps that is why we decided it was too much work, 
and impossible for an implementation, to distinguish between

q=>p(1)

and

q=>p

and make semantic differences based on that.

Aleks




More information about the J3 mailing list