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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Dale Stanbrough Subject: Re: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation Date: 1996/10/22 Message-ID: <54jgdp$qki$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 191333723 distribution: world references: <325CE047.7FF2@gsfc.nasa.gov> <326BBBCA.15AE@watson.ibm.com> <1996Oct19.143402.1@eisner> content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 x-xxmessage-id: organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: "Well that has a simple answer. The new operation is safe, the free is obviously not safe. Ada is designed as a safe language, and it is a deliberate decision to make the use of non-safe operations inconvenient and very clearly documented. No one even considered adding a Free keyword to Ada 9X, I cannot imagine anyone supporting such a change." But it is there, at least in spirit. Package Ada.Strings.Unbounded includes a free procedure for type String_Access. Surely most package that export an access type also export the associated "free" procedure? If they do then aren't we getting into nit-picking? Whether it is provided by the language, or by the implementor of an ADT, it is there for use by client code. Dale