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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e7d9fee9b42cd34e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Anh Vo" <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Not null feature with anonymous and named access types
Date: 14 Jun 2006 08:37:13 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1150299433.315551.41490@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <1150144396.104055.164310@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <6_kjg.4603$E02.1474@newsb.telia.net>
   <1150154013.951160.154270@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <15d5p0cbyr817.1vzzowtu2dayj$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1150212476.630345.297100@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <4fana1F1i8fppU1@individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.225.226.117
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1150299439 28816 127.0.0.1 (14 Jun 2006 15:37:19
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:37:19 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <4fana1F1i8fppU1@individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;
 .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.225.226.117;
   posting-account=JVr7Xg0AAAAI3MbuARxMmvWLmA7qdJMx
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4766
Date: 2006-06-14T08:37:13-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
> > Agreed. However, memory leak occurs when the scope is complete in this
> > case. Therefore, not null access should be used with extreme care.
> > Otherwise, memory leak is almost certain.
>
> I don't see anything has radically changed in this respect since Ada95. You
> expose in the spec a not null type and in body use some nullable type for
> unchecked deallocations, if necessary.

It is nice to have null excluded feature. However, memory can not be
reclaimed, in this case, because of Constraint_Error raised when
attempting to deallocate it. In Ada 95, null excluded not available,
Constraint_Error will not be raised when deallocate the access object
again in this case.

AV