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,d1df6bc3799debed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: Syntax for tagged record types (was Re: Not intended for use in
 medical,)
Date: 1997/05/23
Message-ID: <JSA.97May23141814@alexandria>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 243468899
Distribution: world
References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com>
 <33828299.2A3@world.std.com> <mheaney-ya023680002005972314260001@news.ni.net
 <mheaney-ya023680002105972302430001@news.ni.net> <EALJpp.HnH@world.std.com>
 <33850721.49BF@sprintmail.com>
Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <33850721.49BF@sprintmail.com> "John G. Volan" <johnvolan@sprintmail.com> writes:

> for deallocating the designated T object?  The answers might be:
> 
> (1) The object with the discriminant. (It "owns" the designated T
> object, so it should deallocate it on Finalize).
> 
> (2) The client who passed the T into the discriminant. (It may have
> passed the same T access value as a discriminant to several objects, so
> it should deallocate the designated T object only once all those other
> objects are finalized).
> 
> (3) Nobody. The T object was never allocated on the heap in the first
> place. It was aliased, and 'Access was passed to the discriminant.

(4) The GC...

> This doesn't make for very clean abstractions. Choice (1) might be the

(4) eliminates this issue completely...

/Jon


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