[J3] Clarification on F18/017

[Ondřej Čertík]

Hi Malcolm,

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, at 2:29 PM, Ondřej Čertík via J3 wrote:
> Hi Malcolm,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 7:38 PM, Malcolm Cohen via J3 wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > 
> > Okay, here’s the analysis of what happens with the example program, 
> > under the interp as it stands.
> 
> Thank you very much for this detailed analysis. We really appreciate it.
> 
> We'll discuss it, and if we have further questions or proposals, we 
> will post here.

So we discussed it both inside LANL and outside, and at LANL we definitely do not want the CBPA order to be allowed, and it seems a lot of people in the wider community agree.

In your analysis you explained that due to automatic deallocation predating finalizers, it is natural for some compilers to allow CBPA. 

Is there any other motivation to allow the CBPA order?

There do not seem to be any user codes that would depend on CBPA, simply because the CABP order has always been allowed and implemented by several compilers.

>From the user perspective, the CBPA order is unexpected and surprising. In our opinion based on the discussion so far, it should not be allowed by the Standard.

Ondrej