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: 103376,3cfaa627fc3366de
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:43:15 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110613 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Task origin track from a class
References: 
 <e05f6958-33e1-4660-bdfa-c370ca466c02@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
 <4o0rnqqqec1s$.19h46xsbjbku2.dlg@40tude.net> <m2k4bnyeoo.fsf@pushface.org>
 <m2fwmbyelq.fsf@pushface.org>
 <024dd037-7c8f-460a-8ec4-0bf2456435ee@fq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <13h82glc3htf0.1sjzw91gfndbf$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <13h82glc3htf0.1sjzw91gfndbf$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4e1d5aa3$0$6544$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Jul 2011 10:43:15 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: f920b23a.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=G_dZ7fR>FYlm7>ihJR;B_c4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk0EoDC;aOUAdPCY\c7>ejVhn2EH2\N7^Zg^Vb1]W91Xcg
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:21161
Date: 2011-07-13T10:43:15+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 7/13/11 9:41 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote:
>
> The actual problems are:
>
> 1. The procedure of destruction of the objects having task components.
> Tasks are completed *before* Finalize is called. Ada's approach to
> construction/destruction is very much broken.

When the life time of objects is determined by Ada's
language rules (and not by the type system), isn't it
normal to expect that the language defined wrecking
ball smashes the thing only after it has finished?

What would be the alternative?  Would it be that the
programmer then has to actively manage all parts of
destruction  himself?

When an implementation collects garbage, when would
the "destructor" run?  Do finalization and RAII destruction(?)
have to be separate things?