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,c0d4e990924eb044
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:52:20 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Newbie question -- dereferencing access
References: <RL-dnRPsn-IcgyXUnZ2dnUVZ8oKWnZ2d@posted.plusnet>
 <f05febe5-7bd4-41ee-b366-10db56397230@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <OZGdneh8guLrQSXUnZ2dnUVZ8gKWnZ2d@posted.plusnet>
 <72516b38-1711-4588-b53b-7b42773f70c2@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <op.uqok5lr65afhvo@chenrezig>
 <1IednThMP8E8sCfUnZ2dnUVZ8suWnZ2d@posted.plusnet>
 <71ut2oFn4m2pU1@mid.individual.net> <49BA8A57.7090200@tgrowe.plus.net>
In-Reply-To: <49BA8A57.7090200@tgrowe.plus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <49ba8f44$0$31873$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Mar 2009 17:52:20 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: da58add8.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=iabN_I4eo:9D]ncZ]`hZ;1McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb922U2793XV6;;9OJDO8_SK6NSZ1n^B98i:HR9O6Nle8h0
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4110
Date: 2009-03-13T17:52:20+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Tim Rowe schrieb:
> Alex R. Mosteo wrote:

> But I can't put an unconstrained type into a record.

Have you seen Bounded_String (and Unbounded_String)?


> What I'm feeling the lack of is destructors for classes (sorry, for
> tagged records). I suspect I'll find what I need when I learn about
> finalizers, but whereas in C++ I learned about delete at the same time
> as I learned about new, and I learned about destructors at the same time
> as I learned about constructors, it seems strange in Ada to find access
> allocation addressed in the mainstream and access deallocation relegated
> to an advanced topic (and destructors nowhere in my sight). And yet it's
> C/C++ that has the reputation for memory leaks!

OK, but not every implementations requires programmer defined
deallocation :-) Ada on the JVM delegates storage handling
to the VM.