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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5dacec64c8c879fa
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.226.10 with SMTP id ro10mr12659127pbc.6.1328581173291;
        Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:19:33 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni268868pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Preventing Unchecked_Deallocation?
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:19:32 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <645ab281-7fde-40ed-ab24-bc2b42bcda1a@15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <33a35da4-6c3e-4ab4-b58f-a9d73565d79a@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
 <ad427e2f-efdb-4e34-b4cf-ee55a3f8e9f5@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <f4c34323-d0d8-4315-aaaa-31c0119e2ba4@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
 <4350713b-6ac3-4b22-b221-8da2bac52fea@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
 <26e4f2a4-edae-4e37-8697-f2390e636a21@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.230.151.194
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1328581173 31524 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2012 02:19:33
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:19:33 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.230.151.194;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
 rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-02-06T18:19:32-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 6, 6:14=A0pm, Simon Belmont <sbelmont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:21=A0am, 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 =3D 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.