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: 103376,9c0f2ad38cef26ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Garbage collection (was a spinoff of a spinoff of a GA diatribe) Date: 1996/10/18 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 190429351 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <9610152135.AA13753@most> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Jon says > > "This just isn't accurate. Sure, you can go a reasonable way with > this. But finalization stuff just doesn't catch many typical cases > and it is _way_ expensive. Also, you have to put in all the effort > for something which would be directly useable. > " > > First, it is not finalization but adjust that is the critical function. > But in any case the above claim is technically incomprehensible, please > elucidate. I meant "finalization stuff" as in Ada.Finalization stuff. But actually, finalization in many cases is much more critical (especially when you are using limited types where there isn't any adjust anyway!!!) So, I guess I would disagree with you anyway. Second, none of this stuff covers all the cases. It just plain doesn't. And, even if it were to work for the particulars of a specific application, you still have to go and roll your own stuff and make sure it is all correct and whatnot. None of this is particularly incomprehensible. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com