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,c04a86d57d8e19c4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: C vs Ada code quality
Date: 1997/04/29
Message-ID: <5k4vj7$603$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 238375945
References: <dewar.861854980@merv> <336163A0.7B56@pratique.fr>
 <dewar.862056422@merv>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.862056422@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>Now you may wonder why in practice C++ implementations have
>avoided the use of dynamic lists for finalization, and Ada implementations
>have often used them. The answer is simple. Once you have to deal with
>exceptions the dynamic list has real advantages -- the C++ world is
>working through these problems now -- for example, see the discussions
>with respect to g++ and exeptions, where recently someone seriously
>suggested the possibility of going to lists for handling destructors.

Indeed it is my understanding that this was recently done in the GCC
development sources.