Re: Type conversion between access types (was: Free'ing extended types)

[bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)]

In article <leschkes.832959439@ferret>,
Scott Leschke <leschkes@ferret.cig.mot.com> wrote:
>I have noticed that in most of the code I've seen, all is used pretty
>liberally would makes me wonder about the benefit of making the distinction
>between pool and general accesss types myself.  I have wondered if it may
>have been better to have the distinction go the other way if indeed a
>distinction was warranted (ie. general and non-pool based).

I admit, with 20-20 hindsight, that the 'all' thing was a mistake.  I
pushed for the idea during the design of Ada 9X, because I thought this
efficiency distinction was important.  Tucker, on the other hand,
thought that all access types should be 'all'.  He was right; I was
wrong.

- Bob