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: 103376,19bd7ab0daefd69b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Storage_Error with parameterized records
Date: 1998/07/07
Message-ID: <dewar.899850282@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 369387696
References: <359D3A0C.13AF4C53@cl.cam.ac.uk> <dewar.899586342@merv>
 <359F50D9.5126DEE1@cl.cam.ac.uk>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 899850366 24602 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Markus said

<<> which just goes to show how this keeps puzzling people. Presumably Markus
> expected an implicit heap implementation here,

Yes, indeed.
>>


Well nothing could show more clearly how it is not at all obvious what the
right choice is. Markus just assumed the heap would be used implicitly, 
whereas some embedded user last week (sorry I forget whom) used this
(implicit heap usage in this situation) as an example of vendors ignoring
users and doing silly things :-)