From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Nov 17 08:47:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 6CDDA3568AD; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:47:17 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ns.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523153568AD for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:47:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from 218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp ([218.42.159.108] helo=Maru6) by ns.nag-j.co.jp with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1RQwgd-0001yn-O2 for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:47:07 +0900 Message-ID: <8443A9E5D9A64B27A3B8E93DA245F2AB@Maru6> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" References: <20111115195432.718F43568F3@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20111115195432.718F43568F3@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4588) Corrigendum 1 ballot Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:47:12 +0900 Organization: =?utf-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3538.513 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3538.513 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Van Snyder wrote: >[f08/0023 8.1.6.7 178:8-9] Delete the hyphen in "pointer-assigned". The editor, and the standard as published, disagrees with this suggestion; that is, "pointer-assigned" is used as a verb in several places in F2008, and I do not think this is problematic. >C1284a is a bit larger hammer than necessary, but liberalizing it would >be messy, so I don't object to it or recommend a change to the >corrigendum. > >At some time we might want to sharpen the constraint to allow >deallocating a polymorphic allocatable object that is not a dummy >argument or a subobject of a dummy argument, not in common or a >subobject of an object in common, and not accessed by host or use >association or a subobject of such an object. All these extra conditions have little to do with the problem, it is already prohibited to deallocate a pointer in common or accessed by host/use association etc. The problem is that you don't know the dynamic type, so you don't know that it is safe to deallocate in a pure procedure. For example after ALLOCATE(localpoly,SOURCE=remotepoly). So you'd have to also have the condition "and could not have been allocated to have a dynamic type that has an impure final subroutine", at the very least. That strikes me as being even less satisfactory than C1284a. We don't want the compilers to have to be proving theorems about this. Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.