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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d067a5a7c60c3b40 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!storethat.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Unchecked_Deallocation vs. delete Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <1178728045.890171.6110@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 19:02:51 +0200 Message-ID: <1hzydt9ej6az6$.12jl0su9budun.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 May 2007 19:02:46 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: ae525348.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=kXY>VQ]5NE[mG86`U=_nC_4IUK On 9 May 2007 09:27:25 -0700, Maciej Sobczak 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. > 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. Further even if a pointer is constructed with new, it can be subject of GC. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de