# Will FORALL be deleted? **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [May 21, 2021, 3:31pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/will-forall-be-deleted/1272 "2021-05-21T15:31:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 8
**Author:** ![FortranFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@FortranFan](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/FortranFan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2021, 8:02pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/will-forall-be-deleted/1272/8 "2021-05-21T20:02:20Z")
> [@Beliavsky](#): > > … I still like FORALL and hope it will be retained … In fact there is a strong argument to be made to **undo** the obsolescence of `FORALL`, it is effectively just a label in the standard, and it can just as readily be removed as applied. For all the compilers worth their salt are going to support it any way! The point in the standard about it being redundant with `DO CONCURRENT` is not quite accurate. `FORALL` is both a statement and a construct; the former is handy. In this [**thread**](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/problem-with-array-definition/1163/8), I was quite tempted to suggest `FORALL` but I didn’t only on account of its label in the standard: ```Fortran forall (integer :: i=1:size(a)) a(i) = xx ! where xx is a valid const-expr ``` --- _[View the full topic](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/will-forall-be-deleted/1272)._