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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bbn!inmet!ishmael!inmet!authorplaceholder
From: ryer@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Garbage Collection
Message-ID: <124000028@inmet>
Date: 2 Jan 89 17:51:00 GMT
References: <3832@hubcap.UUCP>
Nf-ID: #R:hubcap.UUCP:-383200:inmet:124000028:000:735
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!ryer    Jan  2 12:51:00 1989
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Currently, Ada neither requires nor precludes garbage collection.  For 
example, the Symbolics Ada compiler provides it (as well they should), but
none of the eight cross-compilers for the 1750A computer does (as they 
shouldn't).

What are you (any of you) proposing?  That ALL Ada compilers should have
garbage collection?  Than no Ada compilers should be allowed to have it?
Pragmas?

Each day I find a new collection of comments on this note, debating the
goodness of garbage collection in the abstract.  I think that the Ada 
language has already taken the only defensible position, and would be
happy to explain why if anyone wants to take a different concrete position.

Mike "speaking only for myself" Ryer
Intermetrics, Inc.