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: 103376,591cbead201d7f34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: gpriv@axonx.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Prohibiting dynamic allocation for the given type
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1bce3932-29e5-4d19-9068-dd1241e305bf@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <83335709-e099-416b-9967-5ab6aa0aea11@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<bbf57cd3-2b37-4a48-8fad-d8ce72968957@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
	<9ac94db1-01e1-4ce3-81d3-27f8b11f7662@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.196.71.114
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1205941398 2420 127.0.0.1 (19 Mar 2008 15:43:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:43:18 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com; posting-host=151.196.71.114;
	posting-account=YaY8rAoAAAAAnFXOECY3BGVJsrvFJCgy
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 SPARKS
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.12)
	Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20489
Date: 2008-03-19T08:43:17-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 19, 10:38 am, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 8:06 pm, gp...@axonx.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 5:30 pm, Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is it possible to "prohibit" dynamic allocation for the given type?
>
> > > Let's suppose that I have a type which instances make sense only on
> > > the stack.
>
> > Ada is high level language and stack is implementation specific
> > entity. ARM does not mention how the local objects are allocated (it
> > simply irrelevant).  In fact, GNAT uses two stacks for different type
> > of objects but users don't have to know these details.
>
> > > I want to prohibit users from dynamically allocating
> > > instances of this type so that they don't get into troubles.
> > > Preferably at compile-time.
>
> > What's wrong with good old comments atop of type declaration. Like
> > some beverages have: "for most enjoyment serve chilled" or "for best
> > performance avoid heap allocation".
>
> > Don't know if it's ever possible to do it during compile, nothings
> > comes to my mind. But if you insist you may do run-time check by
> > defining custom Storage_Pool pool for your object and raising
> > exception from Allocate method. See ARM 3.11 for details.
>
> No, you can only specify a Storage_Pool for an *access* type; you
> can't specify that "all allocated instances of an object type will go
> through such-and-such a Storage_Pool".
>
>                                    -- Adam

Agree.

The only thing that I can see it useful is some sort of Lock object
attached to the mutex (or like).  Allocating this object dynamically,
will mean that a user has no concept of what this object suppose to do
therefore not knowing what he/she is doing.

George.