Re: Preventing Unchecked_Deallocation?

[BrianG <me@null.email>]

On 02/08/2012 03:49 AM, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> On 7 Lut, 07:26, Jeffrey Carter<spam.jrcarter....@spam.not.acm.org>
> wrote:
>
>> A basic design rule is: the reserved word access must not appear in the visible
>> part of a package specification.
>
> Don't worry. It will appear in the user package, where yours is
> withed.
> The smart user will define his own access types and will make pointers
> from your objects at the nearest opportunity and there's lots of them
> if the type in question is, for example, tagged.
>
>> If you follow this rule, I think your problem
>> will disappear.
>
> This rule will irritate the user, because it will make creating
> pointers one line more difficult. ;-)
>
> --
> Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com

I'm not sure I agree with those rules (for all cases), but if the only 
pointer are user-defined, it would be rather difficult for the user to 
deallocate items allocated by the library - which I believe was the 
original problem.

(Then again, throw in Unchecked_Conversion and anything can be 
deallocated, even I : Integer := 0; which makes just as much sense as 
deallocating someone else's pointer.)

-- 
---
BrianG
000
@[Google's email domain]
.com