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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,bf608b8936d68540
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.59.205 with SMTP id m13mr29603961qah.7.1367766018419;
        Sun, 05 May 2013 08:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.106.231 with SMTP id gx7mr1422324qeb.6.1367766018397;
 Sun, 05 May 2013 08:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 y6ni0qax.0!nntp.google.com!m7no2395057qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 08:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <km1e4q$j98$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.53.78.59;
 posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.53.78.59
References: <143a8db3-c14b-4983-a481-4b998aea42af@googlegroups.com>
 <km1e4q$j98$1@munin.nbi.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7a248ba5-9fbc-4326-bbb8-eec3c125d455@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Accessing finalized values
From: sbelmont700@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 15:00:18 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2013-05-05T08:00:18-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, May 3, 2013 6:36:08 PM UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>=20
> This is perfectly legitimate, although arguably pathological.
>

Pathological seems like an understatement; it seems like a pretty major cat=
ch-22.  If the whole purpose of Finalize is "to ensure that proper cleanup =
is performed prior to the object becoming permanently inaccessible", but it=
s perfectly legitimate to access the object after Finalize has been called,=
 then writing 110% bulletproof code becomes much more complex.  How is an o=
bject supposed to free its resources if the resources must still be made av=
ailable? =20

For instance, suppose finalization for a File type closes the file; if it h=
as to assume that other code might call Read and Write subprograms after Fi=
nalize has been executed, the file must stay open and the point is moot (or=
 it must add preconditions to every operation).  It would seem like the sam=
e rules for protected types should apply to non-protected types as well, fo=
r all the same reasons.

-sb