Dick Hendrickson wrote:
> "If a pointer is currently associated with a portion
> (2.4.3.1) of a target object that is independent of any
> other portion of the target object, it shall not be
> deallocated."
> Doesn't that define what we mean by "whole object"?
No, it does not, at least not explicitly. Certainly Lawrie thinks
differently:
J.L.Schonfelder wrote:
> A whole
> array is an object that is named without selection qualifications.
I agree but here the whole object is not named, we are talking about
"being associated with a whole object."
Should I write an interp against F2003, or what?
Thanks,
Aleks
|