(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