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: Really more GC talk (was: Reading a line of arbitrary length)
Date: 1997/03/11
Message-ID: <dewar.858098259@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 224746241
References: <5ds40o$rpo@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <33032AE2.666F@mds.lmco.com>
 <JSA.97Mar4154951@alexandria> <1997Mar5.102140.1@eisner>
 <5flm4e$ngl@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1997Mar6.075735.1@eisner>
 <5g2mmb$2nl@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Fergus said

<<The standard implies that standard-conforming implementations can use
only conservative garbage collection, and that implementations that use
non-conservative GC techniques cannot be standard-conforming.

That still seems to me to be a potentially undesirable constraint to
place on standard-conforming implementations.
>>

I can't figure out the strange misreading of the RM that leads to this
incorrect conclusion, but it is certainly an incorrect conclusion.
There is no such constraint in the RM.