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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_SPAM,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fc772,b30bd69fa8f63cb2 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b30bd69fa8f63cb2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-13 01:02:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.moat.net!news-out.newsfeeds.com!propagator2-maxim!news-in-maxim.spamkiller.net!usc.edu!rpi!not-for-mail From: Wesley Groleau Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++.moderated Subject: Re: C bug of the day Date: 13 Jun 2003 04:05:04 -0400 Organization: Ain't no organization here! Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Message-ID: References: <1054751321.434656@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Original-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:53:09 -0500 X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated iQBVAwUAPumFrUHMCo9UcraBAQHCoQH+JG8THiW5iWW0hKacRtYwWNzGVgxKut6U NbcyIxg28j1eNTalqhBBBd3Lgf4pm5Q6XluulgQ8VBCFoeqtYI2QDQ== =Nk2U Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39086 comp.lang.c++.moderated:68264 Date: 2003-06-13T04:05:04-04:00 List-Id: > > One point where I'm pretty sure Ada 83 didn't have the right default > (although they may have fixed it in Ada 95): garbage collection. While > there are places where it is necessary to turn garbage collection off > (which seriously limits the use of a language in which you cannot have > untraced pointers, which the garbage collector cannot see), the safe > option is obviously to have it on by default, no? In Ada, GC is automatic for stack variables, but it was intentionally left up to the vendor for access types (which in Ada only exist when the programmer explicitly declares them) because in some applications, it could cause timing problems. However, Ada 95 did add the ability for the programmer to define whether GC occurs for any particular data type, as well as to define how it occurs. > 2) you can generally "work around" the safety checks if necessary > (hopefully on a case by case basis, using source code constructs; > e.g. by writing array.unsafe_at( index ) rather than array[ index ]). Actually, it's something like pragma Suppress ( , ); [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-help@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ] [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]