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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2907a68906511623
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Idea for Ada 200x: Arguments that are procedures
Date: 1998/07/04
Message-ID: <1998Jul4.094114.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 368662480
References: <6nh9f0$66i@netline.jpl.nasa.gov>
 <359D41CE.D3976FA6@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
X-Trace: news.decus.org 899559676 10968 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <359D41CE.D3976FA6@earthlink.net>, Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> writes:
> Van Snyder wrote:
>> 
>> Procedures that are arguments are restricted in Ada because of the
>> possibility of copying the pointer to somewhere that has a longer
>> lifetime than the up-level environment of the procedure.
>> 
> 	/*	snip	*/
>> to my deep-in-the-guts-of-the-system procedure as the actual argument.
>> I can't do this now, because the type might outlive the procedure, and
>> therefore a pointer to the procedure might outlive its up-level.

> I find the lack of a decent garbage collector to be a MUCH more
> troublesome problem.

So speak to your compiler vendor about garbage collection.
That does not seem to be a standards issue, and until there
are more Ada garbage collection implementations in use, it
would seem presumptuous to attempt to decide what constituted
a "decent" one.

Larry Kilgallen