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: <6v15di$87t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 396846301 References: <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 00:06:10 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: In article , stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote: > Tom Moran (tmoran@bix.com) wrote: > > : ... > : 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? > > Yes. Specify the 'Storage_Size associated with the access-type. > The implementation is required to reclaim the storage for the > access type when exiting its scope if a 'Storage_Size is specified > (see RM95 13.11(18)). Yes, indeed! Nice answer, but I was assuming that this obvious approach of fixed size allocation was not acceptable, in which case you are definitely going to have to use UD I am afraid :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own