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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,68536605ede13a20
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.213.99 with SMTP id nr3mr3134639pbc.2.1324423138670;
        Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:18:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 lh20ni45795pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tornevall.net!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!jacob-sparre.dk!ada-dk.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT - return by anonymous access
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:18:55 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <jcr551$2jq$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: 
 <784c67eb-a542-41b0-b23d-fca1234e56b2@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
 <jcoidj$lpr$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <b896b012-1f49-494c-a585-3d37a7c0965a@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1324423137 2682 69.95.181.76 (20 Dec 2011 23:18:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:18:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2011-12-20T17:18:55-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shark8" <onewingedshark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b896b012-1f49-494c-a585-3d37a7c0965a@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

>Hm, so then are local pools useless? Or do they have their place?
>I read some of the rational[e/ization] for them and it seems
>reasonable, but I've not actually used them.

A local pool is fine, so long as it is tied to a local pool-specific access 
type. Using a pool (any pool!) with general access type is asking for 
trouble. And anonymous access types are general access types by definition.

It's best to do all of your allocation with a named pool-specific access 
type, and then (if necessary) convert the value to a more flexible general 
access type (including the anonymous ones). That way, you'll at least know 
how long the access value is supposed to live, and have a means of freeing 
it explicitly if needed.

Personally, I'd just avoid anonymous access types, but I'm not going to go 
so far as to recommend that (there are things that are hard to do any other 
way).

                                        Randy.