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: 103376,5997b4b7b514f689
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Reading a line of arbitrary length
Date: 1997/03/03
Message-ID: <dewar.857447653@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 222924141
References: <5ds40o$rpo@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <33032AE2.666F@mds.lmco.com>
 	<dewar.855848896@merv> <33037A74.44AF@mds.lmco.com> 	<dewar.855929857@merv>
 <3304D791.489C@acm.org> <dewar.855983270@merv>
 	<JSA.97Feb16144316@alexandria> <dewar.856305993@merv>
 	<JSA.97Feb21210228@alexandria> <dewar.856737108@merv>
 	<JSA.97Feb24200352@alexandria> <dewar.857004623@merv>
 	<JSA.97Feb27145823@alexandria> <dewar.857350120@merv>
 	<5fdu5d$hn5@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1997Mar3.082830.1@eisner>
 <JSA.97Mar3141341@alexandria>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jon said

<<Because there are areas and cases where the GC should not be simply
"transparent".  That it should have some explicit programmer control
available.>>

Well there is a contentions statement. I strongly disagree that GC
should not be simply transparent, and I do not like the idea of
standardizing explicit programmer control, whatever that might be.

Certainly if you take the position that GC should only be standardized
with suchj explicit programmer control, you would lose my support at
the standardization (which is too bad, since I seemed to be the only
one around the Ada 95 design effort with any sympathy for GC!)

GC in SNOBOL4 is indeed transparent, and that is the way things should
be in my opinion.