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,ed6a891101ff4e06
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewarr@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Freeing Pointers to classwide types
Date: 1998/10/02
Message-ID: <6v15au$7t0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 396846300
References: <1ftmFTC69GA.191@samson.airnet.net>
 <360b26a1.41575272@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6ugeu2$79u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360c4a70.29707515@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6uifpt$e98$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360d1380.165146@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6ulj29$ne3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360e790d.241368@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6umkl8$qbm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360f143c.39974468@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6uo8mt$el9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360fc072.1728326@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6uokru$lbi$1@uuneo.neosoft.com>
 <360fec6e.12989714@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6upond$4lc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <361126ef.4269711@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <36127a1c.276097@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6uuo50$1pg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <36131a1b.34896409@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <87iui4bs8c.fsf@zaphod.enst.fr>
 <3613a5b1.186262@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x4.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Oct 02 00:04:46 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.02 (OS/2; I)
Date: 1998-10-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3613a5b1.186262@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>,
  tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) wrote:
> >Tom> and Unchecked_Deallocation?
>
> >Depends whether you want to reuse allocated-then-freed memory or not.
>   Since this section of the thread started with a discussion of
> automatic, ie, not via Unchecked_Deallocation, of memory, it would
> seem strange to me to go to all this trouble just to wind up using
> Unchecked_Deallocation after all.  And since the whole discussion is
> about what to do if your compiler doesn't free, ie, make available for
> re-use, certain memory automatically, "free"ing, but not making
> available for re-use, also doesn't seem useful.
>   Let me rephrase the question: If an access type goes out of scope,
> so the things it pointed to become inaccessible, is there any portable
> way to prevent an eventual Storage_Error from multiple calls of the
> block, without using Unchecked_Deallocation?


The answer is no, but so what? This is like asking if there is a way to
define a function without using the function keyword, or whether there is
a way to have concurrent execution without using the task keyword.
Unchecked_Deallocation is for use in such contexts, why on earth worry
about whether you can do unchecked deallocations without using
Unchecked_Deallocation?

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own