(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3969) question about deallocation
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
q=>p(2:1:-1) ! Reverse order
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
and make semantic differences based on that.
More information about the J3