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: 103376,2866100c9a2b8ce7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Free'ing extended types
Date: 1996/04/29
Message-ID: <Dqn917.HCC@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152110372
references: <3183AC75.335C@ehs.ericsson.se> <3184803D.1208@ehs.ericsson.se>
 <DqMH63.Jvw@world.std.com> <dewar.830797117@schonberg>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.830797117@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>What I was saying was that you can never look to the actual code in
>the implementation to determine this, though you could look to annex M.

Yes, quite correct, and quite a useful admonishment.  Too many folks
program by seeing what a particular implementation does, and then
assuming that's what all implementations will do!  I guess I'm off-topic
here, since this affliction is prevalent among programmers in just about
*all* languages, not particularly Ada.  Grump.  ;-)

- Bob