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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,902bff0abea1083d,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news2.volia.net!feeder.news.tin.it!spool.news.tin.it!not-for-mail
Message-Id: <44c7c3d3$0$47958$4fafbaef@reader3.news.tin.it>
From: fabio de francesco <cancella.fabiomdf@alice.elimina.it>
Subject: Why people wants to complicate code with Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:34:46 +0200
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Organization: TIN.IT (http://www.tin.it)
X-Comments: Please send technical notifications to newsmaster@tin.it
NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.3.111.78
X-Trace: 1153942484 reader3.news.tin.it 47958 87.3.111.78:52699
X-Complaints-To: Please send abuse reports to abuse@tin.it
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5948
Date: 2006-07-26T21:34:46+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hi all.

The following statement is from Cohen's "Ada as a second language":

"Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation must be used with caution. As we shall see, it
can lead to subtle but devastating errors. If storage for allocated object
is plentiful, there is no point in complicating the program to keep track
of which allocated objects are no longer needed".

Does it mean that, for safety sake, programmers should not care about memory
consumption? 

I am not sure I can agree with that. I've been tought that any "malloc"
and "new" must be followed by "free" and "delete". 

What do you think about this issue?

fabio de francesco