Re: Unchecked_Deallocation vs. delete

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 9 Maj, 19:02, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

> > What's the benefit of Unchecked_Deallocation as a generic library
> > procedure vs. built-in deallocation operator like delete in C++?
>
> To make it harder to use.

Why not make a
Very_Hard_To_Use_Unchecked_Deallocation_Built_In_Operator instead?

I'm not asking about the spelling (which is ugly for purpose), but
about category.

> > The disadvantage, as far as I perceive it, is that it breaks the
> > symmetry that should be expected with regard to the allocation
> > operation. If "new" is built-in, then the deallocation should be built-
> > in as well.
>
> The symmetry is apparent. Pointers can be constructed using two methods:
> new T and X'Access.

Then put a run-time check in this Very_Hard_..._Operator.

Or, why not making separate "subtypes" of pointers? One would be a
specialization of pointers for X'Access and another for new T. You
would need to use the "subtype" for new T to deallocate, or the
compiler would spank you and the downcast to this "subtype" (if ever
needed) would be a perfect place for the run-time check.
(this is a wild idea, but seems to be more in the spirit of Ada)

> Further even if a pointer is constructed with new, it
> can be subject of GC.

So? GC does not prevent me from calling U_D or Very_..._Operator.

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/