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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Why no Free?
Date: 1996/10/18
Message-ID: <dewar.845613908@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 190300137
references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com>
 <Dz2B9H.9HD.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
         <ROGOFF.96Oct10095045@sccm.Stanford.EDU> <325D7F9B.2A8B@gte.net>
        <JSA.96Oct11152501@alexandria> <325FF8D0.6660@io.com>
   <dewar.845162841@merv> <JSA.96Oct14172050@alexandria>
 <dewar.845340573@merv> <mheaney-ya023180001710961727290001@news.ni.net>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew asks

"If I can do this

   The_Node : Node_Access := new Node;

then why shouldn't I be able to do this

   Free (The_Node);

without instantiating Unchecked_Deallocation?
"

Well that has a simple answer. The new operation is safe, the free is
obviously not safe. Ada is designed as a safe language, and it is a
deliberate decision to make the use of non-safe operations inconvenient
and very clearly documented.

No one even considered adding a Free keyword to Ada 9X, I cannot imagine
anyone supporting such a change.