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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9a4a0b8e5206a866
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran)
Subject: Re: Conversion of Access Types Question
Date: 1999/01/21
Message-ID: <36a78574.1068169@news.pacbell.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 435349358
References: <369DFFFC.A160D47C@neta.com> <77l492$b5s@hobbes.crc.com>
 <77ma9b$6ep$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <wccu2xmq6k3.fsf@world.std.com>
 <787d25$hq5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net
X-Trace: typhoon-sf.pbi.net 916948548 206.170.2.142 (Thu,
 21 Jan 1999 11:55:48 PDT)
Organization: SBC Internet Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:55:48 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-01-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>Indeed, I agree. Meanwhile, it is not a bad idea at all
>to routinely use ALL,
I disagree.  There are significant differences between things
allocated on the heap with 'new' and things on the stack or fixed that
use 'all'.  Certainly something like a generic library routine might
want to be able to handle either kind, but, in my code at least, it's
very rare that the two are actually mixed.