From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.107.31.20 with SMTP id f20mr16077709iof.8.1523187969291;
        Sun, 08 Apr 2018 04:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4c99:: with SMTP id m25-v6mr761056otf.6.1523187969180;
 Sun, 08 Apr 2018 04:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.unit0.net!peer03.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!k65-v6no1351042ita.0!news-out.google.com!u64-v6ni2437itb.0!nntp.google.com!u184-v6no1366888ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 04:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <dd9d081d-6b76-454c-aa3e-4276ca112f1e@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=173.71.218.250;
 posting-account=QF6XPQoAAABce2NyPxxDAaKdAkN6RgAf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.218.250
References: <115d2e72-2b30-4ec0-b42f-52e9df2905d4@googlegroups.com>
 <dd9d081d-6b76-454c-aa3e-4276ca112f1e@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <09e65278-c561-47f3-89b6-2055319aff43@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: no, it can't be,
 there's no "with procedure instance_of_generic_procedure
 is new generic_procedure;" ? Impossible !
From: Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2018 11:46:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1940
X-Received-Body-CRC: 456315201
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51400
Date: 2018-04-08T04:46:08-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 7:15:15 AM UTC-4, Mehdi Saada wrote:
> I understand your point, but there are special cases... namely 
> Unchechecked_deallocation, unchecked_conversion. In the example above, 
> I can't be sure the "Free" provided will be an effective deallocation procedure.

Something to consider in your specific case:  For smart pointers, you may
not want to restrict the user to unchecked_deallocation exclusively.  Consider
a smart pointer to a file or a serial port.  You may want your finalize
procedure to not only deallocate but to also close the resource (if it
is open). In those cases you'll need a slightly more complex finalization
routine.