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: 103376,5653f0bd43045b85
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Gautier <Gautier.deMontmollin@Maths.UniNe.CH>
Subject: Re: garbage collection
Date: 1999/08/19
Message-ID: <37BC29D7.A803D4F9@Maths.UniNe.CH>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 514731004
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7pe93j$ehg$1@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>
 <37BB3C67.64DC8383@mitre.org>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-08-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>    Why?  Three reasons.  Freeing the storage when the type goes out of
> scope allows for predictable storage reclamation which is very useful in
> real-time code.  Second, the user can easily manage storage for any type
> the way he wants to.  Insisting on "full" garbage collection would limit
> the user's choices.

BTW: is it possible to prove that an object is not more accessed 
(of course: as long as its type exists) ? It's so easy to copy a pointer...

-- 
Gautier