Re: list strawman

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <upu4l3jg9.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>, Stephen Leake says...
>
>Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
>
>> If you could move the tagged-ness to the private section, I'd prefer

>I agree, but I needed the 'Class in functions returning Iterator to
>avoid dispatching on two types. If I use 'Class in the public part,
>the type has to be _publicly_ tagged.
>
>An alternate solution is to wrap the Controlled iterator type in a
>record, so that the public Iterator type is not itself tagged.

That's precisely what I did. The iterator is not tagged, but is a record with
one field whose type is derived from Controlled. 

>You're right; I'm not doing this right. I think it is easy to fix; in
>Finalize (List), loop thru the Iterator_list, and call
>Invalidate_Iterator. Apparently I meant to do that, because I declared
>the subprogram Invalidate_Iterator, but I never call it :).

Right. That's the way it looked to me too.

>Yes, that is a good design policy. But currently, in Initialize
>(Iterator), I add the iterator to the List's Iterator_List. So that
>doesn't get done in some cases. I need to change this.

Ahhh, so I see. Which list are you talking about though? The user has never
specified a list at this point, and Object.IA.List (which you dereference) is
probably going to be null (not to mention Object.IA itself).

>> I actually have been checking for leaks too, with some code internal
>> to the package. I essentially increment an alloction counter at
>
>Yes, but my Test_Storage_Pools does the same thing, without modifying
>the source; it's a generic parameter (the storage_pool). That makes it
>easier to take out in a release. And you don't have to worry about
>forgetting a "new".

I may look into that, if its something that can easily be fit into a dumb test
case. The way I have it in there now is good to prove that there are no leaks to
someone who is interested, but its a bit of a hack and clutters up the code
quite a bit.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.