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: 103376,5653f0bd43045b85,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rayoub@wam.umd.edu (Ronald Ayoub)
Subject: garbage collection
Date: 1999/08/18
Message-ID: <7pe93j$ehg$1@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 514189369
X-Complaints-To: abuse@wam.umd.edu
X-Trace: dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu 934979507 14896 128.8.10.142 (18 Aug 1999
 12:31:47 GMT)
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Aug 1999 12:31:47 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-08-18T12:31:47+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In the book "Programming in Ada 95" by Barnes he says:

If an allocated object becomes inaccessbile becasue no declard objects refer
to it directly or indirectly then the storage it occupies may be reclaimed
so that it can be reused for other objects. An implementation may (but need
not) provide garbage collection for this.

I need this to be clarified for me. If an implementation doesn't provide 
garbage collection then that storage is forever lost, is that correct? Or
does this mean that it may not be garbage collected but when a call to new
is executed it is at that time scene as available. Please clarify. This seems
like a real bad idea not to have some form of garbage collection inforced.

Ron