Re: Preventing Unchecked_Deallocation?

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Feb 6, 6:14 pm, Simon Belmont <sbelmont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:21 am, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
>
> It's strange to me that a language of
> such a high level of abstraction when it comes to everything else
> still regards access types with the underlying 'address stored in
> memory' mentality.
>

You know, I remember reading somewhere that Ada chose ACCESS because
it could be implemented as something other than an integer... like a
record (remember the segment:offset pairs on the 286?).

Technically still an "address stored in memory" but far better (IMO)
than the "yeah-its-an-integer" of most other languages.

I seem to also recall a 'trick' for making an access-type "must-
derefrence" by using "FOR ACCESS_TYPE'Size = 0;"

But, in any case, you're probably right that a REFERENCE type (being a
constant,
not null, auto-dereferenced, optionally limited access type) would be
a good addition.