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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!enea!sommar
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Garbage Collection
Message-ID: <4176@enea.se>
Date: 18 Dec 88 20:12:58 GMT
Organization: ENEA DATA AB, Sweden
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Sworn enemy to garbage collection Bill Wolfe writes:
>     The deallocation of every object in the local environment is
>     performed as an automatic service when a procedure, function,
>     or local block is exited.  This is not garbage collection,
>     because the programmer has implicitly directed that the 
>     destruction be performed.  

I read this as "on block exit all memory allocated to variables
declared in that block should be deallocated". 
  Isn't this very dangerous? What if programmer copied the object to
a variable declared in a outer block? Or stored it in a table of some
sort in a subprogram call made in block? 
-- 
Erland Sommarskog
ENEA Data, Stockholm
sommar@enea.se
"Frequently, unexpected errors are entirely unpredictable" - Digital Equipment