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: 103376,2925b133078d1557
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Flexible Strings (was Equality operator...)
Date: 1997/05/07
Message-ID: <dewar.863063321@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 240170678
References: <9704301422.AA07755@most>
 <F8EE9AADC9C36923.41A42DC23ED785AA.CE3497CD89914525@library-proxy.airnews.net>
 <dewar.862755569@merv> <5kocg6$hln@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <E9sAq2.HE8@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob said

<<Of course, I admit that the C standard is easier to understand on this
particular point, if you're just a programmer trying to write programs,
and not a language lawyer.  The Ada standard goes out of its way to
raise questions of this nature, unfortunately.  Nonetheless, I claim
that the requirements of C and Ada are identical with respect to whether
free/Unch_Dealloc must/should reclaim storage.  They're just written in
a different style.>>

Well you are the author, so if you say the C standard is easier to understand
on this point, I suppose that must have some force. But let me quote again
the words you wrote here in the Ada standard:

17   For a standard storage pool, Free should actually reclaim the storage.

That sure seems like an easy-to-understand unambiguous statement of intent
to me, I don't see it any harder to understand than the referenced statement
from the C standard.