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,aa968038a51ee866
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Q: Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation
Date: 1996/07/16
Message-ID: <EACHUS.96Jul16153330@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169297675
references: <31E5D4D1.11DB36E1@jinx.sckans.edu> <dewar.837178582@schonberg>
organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.837178582@schonberg> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

  > We talked at one point with Tuck about a pragma that would be applied to 
  > a type something like

  > Finalization_Is_Used_Only_For_Freeing_Storage (type);

  > (well we need a better name :-)

  > the effect would be to simply ignore finalize calls at the outer level, or,
  > in the case of a GC Ada 95, to ignore all finalize calls for the type.

  > Thoughts?

   Yep.  The lack of a good name means that you are trying to
implement the wrong pragma.  Add a pragma Free or a pragma Collect
to GNAT, where the semantics are to apply respectively
Unchecked_Deallocation or checked deallocation to all the access
values in the record during finalization.

   (You might even want a third pragma that is never called by
assignment, but that is a detail, since Collect should be functionally
identical.)

   Of course an explicit overriding of Finalize for a derived type
should supercede the pragma for that type and its children.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...