Re: Anonymous access types are evil, why?

[Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@aol.com>]

On Friday, August 30, 2013 12:29:17 AM UTC-7, ake.ragna...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks for your analysis and especially the interesting result "an allocator whose type is a named access type should be preferred over an allocator whose type is anonymous".

You're welcome, but I didn't mean for this to be taken as a general rule of Ada programming.  It looks like it's a helpful rule for this particular implementation (GNAT 2013), but I still don't know whether the implementation is correct or whether the extra overhead you're seeing is actually necessary.  It could be that this is a problem with GNAT, and they'll fix it, and that in the future there may not be a reason to prefer allocators whose types are named.  I just don't know.

                               -- Adam