Re: Unconstrained type Unchecked_Deallocation

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <38C3D82F.C9F81832@bton.ac.uk>,
  John English <je@bton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Ted Dennison wrote:
> > That ought to work just fine. However, I don't see the benifit of
> > doing this over just naming the instantiation of
> > Unchecked_Deallocation "Free" in the first place. They have the same
> > parameter profile and the same mission.
>
> Possibly to avoid creating a dependence between the package spec and
> Unchecked_Deallocation? Might make it easier to move to a different
> allocation/deallocation regime at a later date, e.g. when porting...

Assuming that in real life that code is split between the spec and
body? That's a good possiblity.

The best reason I could think of was the possibility that this is just
an example of a routine that in real life also needs to contain some
other cleanup code. But I find often with beginners they just don't know
any better, so its best to point out inefficencies and possible
alternate techniques.

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.