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: 103376,4f01e5a280279345 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Finalization question Date: 1997/09/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 274881374 Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.camb.inmet.com References: <3426E364.6036@bix.com> Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tom Moran (tmoran@bix.com) wrote: : 2 of 3 tested compilers do not call Finalize if Initialize did not : complete normally. That's the way I'm inclined to read RM 7.6(4), but : the wording could be interpreted otherwise. What's correct? Finalize should only be called if Initialize (or an initial Adjust) completes normally. However, when there are multiple controlled subcomponents of a single object, there is a running debate about how precisely should this rule be enforced. If not enforced precisely, is it better to have extra unAdjusted Finalizes, or extra unFinalized Adjusts? Ideally, only those objects (including subcomponents) that successfully Initialize/Adjust are subjected to finalization. -- -Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/ Intermetrics, Inc. Burlington, MA USA