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: 103376,3498dd887729ed19
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Garbage Collection in Ada
Date: 1996/10/17
Message-ID: <dewar.845591223@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 190232195
references: <dewar.845388021@merv> <5453vh$6dt@mailsrv2.erno.de>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Thomas said

"
Yes, but one difference is: you may write "Junk := null;" as often as you like,
but beware of calling "Free (Junk);" more than once (with any aliases of "Junk")"


You lost the thread :-)

The issue was whether or not you could completely ignore the issue of freeing
memory. Lars claimed that GC allowed you to completely ignore this issue.

The point of pointing out that Junk := null may be necessary was to refute
this incorrect point. Your response is a general note that GC is more
convenient when it comes to freeing memory. Yes, of course, no one disputes
this! And no one did in this thread.