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,b307bd75c8071241 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: newbie Q: storage management Date: 1997/04/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 239084495 Distribution: world References: <5k5hif$7r5@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <336754A0.41C6@magellan.bgm.link.com> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <336754A0.41C6@magellan.bgm.link.com> "Samuel A. Mize" writes: > What this does is implementation dependent -- if memory reclamation > is required, it's the responsibility of the programmer (or code > reuser) to ensure that the implementation (that is, by the compiler > and run-time system) reclaims memory as necessary. How can this be the responsibility of the application programmer? Also, the effects of UC are pretty well laid out in 13.11.2 and while reclamation is implementation dependent (?!?!) I would think any implementation not providing it for the standard storage pool would be sorely broken. Unusably broken. > If reclamation were in the language, embedded systems builders could > just avoid it, but compilers targeted to the embedded-system market > would still have to include it to be validated. This adds cost and > complexity to the compiler, and adds size to the run-time code that > gets loaded along with the user code. I suppose you would really be against GC. I don't know why people keep saying this. How is this in any way different from any other specialized needs annex sort of thing??? Just cast it in those sorts of terms. If you didn't want to supply it don't implement that annex and you wouldn't validate against that annex. Shrug. Those who didn't want it wouldn't care. I don't see the problem. I know Robert thinks this is "gratuitous rubbish", but at this point, I think it is fairly clear that the wider community takes GC to be at least as fundamental and important a thing as distributed objects or interfacing to COBOL - both of which made it into annexes. In fact, it seems rather more fundamental as both of these can be handled in readily available language independent ways (via CORBA, for example). > >Does > > this mean that explicit freeing of objects via an instance of > > Unchecked_Deallocation is discouraged (due to the potential creation of > > dangling references)? > > No. It just means you should know what you're doing in two areas: Well, I disagree. I think it _does_ have an _intentional_ negative connotation for the very reason (and some others) that Kaz points out. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com