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: 1997/03/04
Message-ID: <JSA.97Mar4154951@alexandria>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 223262771
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: 1997-03-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.857447653@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Jon said
> 
> <<Because there are areas and cases where the GC should not be simply
> "transparent".  That it should have some explicit programmer control
> available.>>
> 
> Well there is a contentions statement. I strongly disagree that GC
> should not be simply transparent, and I do not like the idea of
> standardizing explicit programmer control, whatever that might be.

Yes, it is.  These are merely points that have been made in GC
circles.  I'm not _advocating_ them, just trying to point out various
reason why a "defined standard minimal interface" may be needed.

> GC in SNOBOL4 is indeed transparent, and that is the way things should
> be in my opinion.

Well, as Rick said upon first meeting Maj.Strasser, "Let's just say I
understand the point of view of the fox as well as the hound's"

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com