From: "Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com>
Subject: Re: Free'ing dynamic abstract tagged types..
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:41:07 +0200
Date: 2006-09-22T09:41:07+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4nhic5Fajj8vU1@individual.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: uNidneizepC7k47YnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@megapath.net
Randy Brukardt wrote:
(snip)
> Since you can't add Controlled to an inheritance tree after the fact, I
> think that *all* tagged type trees should be derived from Controlled or
> Limited_Controlled. (Otherwise, you're saying that the extensions don't
> need any clean-up, which is likely to be constraining.)
This is something I've wondered some times with the introduction of
interfaces in Ada05: Could not have been defined in Ada.Finalization a
corresponding interface? This way objects not rooted at Controlled could
later easily add finalization.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-22 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-21 21:08 Free'ing dynamic abstract tagged types ldb
2006-09-21 22:12 ` Randy Brukardt
2006-09-22 7:41 ` Alex R. Mosteo [this message]
2006-09-26 0:08 ` Randy Brukardt
2006-09-21 22:12 ` Robert A Duff
2006-09-22 7:21 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2006-09-22 21:59 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox