From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Unconstrained type Unchecked_Deallocation
Date: 2000/03/08
Date: 2000-03-08T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2000Mar8.172955.1@eisner> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8a6f5s$5st$1@nnrp1.deja.com
In article <8a6f5s$5st$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
> In article <38C566CE.6283C0AD@rational.com>,
> Mark Lundquist <mark@rational.com> wrote:
>
>> Right, hiding the instantiation of Unchecked_Deallocation is
>> often a good idea.
>
> This is stated without justification. Please give your reasons
> for this, I don't see it at all.
These days I tend to name my instantiations of Unchecked_Deallocation
Unchecked_<something-or-other>. The fact that an instantiation exists
is plain, and if I wanted to hide the instantiation it would give it
a scope larger than I want.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-03-08 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-03-05 0:00 Unconstrained type Unchecked_Deallocation Andy Askey
2000-03-06 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
2000-03-06 0:00 ` tmoran
2000-03-06 0:00 ` John English
2000-03-06 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
[not found] ` <38C566CE.6283C0AD@rational.com>
2000-03-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2000-03-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen [this message]
2000-04-05 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
2000-04-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2000-04-09 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
2000-04-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2000-04-12 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
2000-04-06 0:00 ` P. S. Norby
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox