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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:6d19:: with SMTP id
 a25-v6mr6450730iod.16.1530312151992;
        Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:f483:: with SMTP id
 s125-v6mr1458423oih.7.1530312151889;
 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!d7-v6no863766itj.0!news-out.google.com!p13-v6ni1241itf.0!nntp.google.com!d7-v6no863763itj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ph62uk$188$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.113.16.86;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.113.16.86
References: <b21095b9-c373-473c-812d-8713ce86992b@googlegroups.com>
 <pfum9o$qi7$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <pfvp1k$ph4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <pg1dpq$dsb$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <351c6acd-8a8c-41a3-bb52-dd3f82322829@googlegroups.com>
 <ph62uk$188$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8a38f12f-1258-41b7-b03b-041cfce938f2@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Comprehending subpools
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 22:42:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53463
Date: 2018-06-29T15:42:31-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 1:57:10 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> I've never seen much value for arena memory management myself, but I prefer 
> to hide access types as much as possible with almost no visible surface. In 
> that case, all of the memory management belongs to the objects, and that 
> tends to require separate management for each object.

Hm, maybe they could be useful for some sort of distributed system? I mean if you're considering a shared memory-space (like, say, IEEE 1394) then disconnection of a device and reclaiming the address-values ala arena management seem to be fairly analogous.