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,f1111f1bf805022b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: John English Subject: Re: Unconstrained type Unchecked_Deallocation Date: 2000/03/06 Message-ID: <38C3D82F.C9F81832@bton.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 593860294 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <8a0h55$qc5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: news@bton.ac.uk X-Trace: saturn.bton.ac.uk 952358773 13033 193.62.183.204 (6 Mar 2000 16:06:13 GMT) Organization: University of Brighton Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Mar 2000 16:06:13 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-03-06T16:06:13+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > That ought to work just fine. However, I don't see the benifit of doing > this over just naming the instantiation of Unchecked_Deallocation "Free" > in the first place. They have the same parameter profile and the same > mission. Possibly to avoid creating a dependence between the package spec and Unchecked_Deallocation? Might make it easier to move to a different allocation/deallocation regime at a later date, e.g. when porting... ----------------------------------------------------------------- John English | mailto:je@brighton.ac.uk Senior Lecturer | http://www.it.bton.ac.uk/staff/je Dept. of Computing | ** NON-PROFIT CD FOR CS STUDENTS ** University of Brighton | -- see http://burks.bton.ac.uk -----------------------------------------------------------------