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: 103376,5997b4b7b514f689 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Reading a line of arbitrary length Date: 1997/03/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 222865830 Distribution: world References: <5ds40o$rpo@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <33032AE2.666F@mds.lmco.com> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <1997Mar3.082830.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > In article <5fdu5d$hn5@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@murlibobo.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes: > > > Certainly there is plenty of disagreement about whether or not GC > > should be provided. But it's not clear to me that you couldn't achieve > > concensus about a minimal portable API for GC, for those > > implementations that do provide it. What makes you think this would be > > so hard? > > I thought the Ada design allowed Garbage Collection to "just work" > without any changes to the source code. Why would one need an API ? Because there are areas and cases where the GC should not be simply "transparent". That it should have some explicit programmer control available. It should also be defined how it interacts with manual memory management - at least at the program model level. There may be some other interesting aspects such as selectable GC style based on the types of objects to be controlled. In the case of Ada this might be defined in terms of certain storage pools and such. There are probably others. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com