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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f2690a5e963b61b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Matthew Heaney" <mheaney@on2.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GCC 4.0 Ada.Containers Cursor danger.
Date: 5 Jul 2005 12:26:35 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1120591595.158965.50780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1120474891.635131.216700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1120575076.876798.108220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1120583470.429264.325450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1120586558.930583.79880@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1120590526.790939.236390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.162.65.162
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1120591600 18396 127.0.0.1 (5 Jul 2005 19:26:40
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:26:40 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1120590526.790939.236390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.162.65.162;
   posting-account=Zl1UPAwAAADEsUSm1PMMiDjihtBlZUi_
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11871
Date: 2005-07-05T12:26:35-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Dmitriy Anisimkov wrote:
> <<The solution in your case is for *you* to either not use cursors, or
> to implement a higher-level abstraction that either prevents or detects
> cursor misuse.>>
>
> I think that 2nd method is too hard to reach safety.

Too hard for whom?  You're the one who is always fulminating against
the evils of pointers, so perhaps you should follow your own advice...


> I prefer to reach safety by the 1st method. It is not a problem for
> me to reach safety.

Then what are we arguing about?  If writing safe abstractions is not a
problem for you, then clearly there is no problem.


> I just feel bad about such unsafety in new Ada standard.

As the Irish say, "Never scald your lips with another man's porridge."

-Matt