(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

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 mailing list