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: Type conversion between access types (was: Free'ing extended
 types)
Date: 1996/05/24
Message-ID: <DrxCGC.3M3@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 156567153
references: <3183AC75.335C@ehs.ericsson.se> <leschkes.832803959@ferret>
 <Drv666.92J@world.std.com> <leschkes.832959439@ferret>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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