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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5dacec64c8c879fa
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.213.68 with SMTP id nq4mr18366658pbc.2.1328744405130;
        Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 wr5ni2873pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BrianG <me@null.email>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Preventing Unchecked_Deallocation?
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:40:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <jgv14j$6eq$1@dont-email.me>
References: 
 <33a35da4-6c3e-4ab4-b58f-a9d73565d79a@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
 <ad427e2f-efdb-4e34-b4cf-ee55a3f8e9f5@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <f4c34323-d0d8-4315-aaaa-31c0119e2ba4@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
 <jgqg6s$oaj$1@adenine.netfront.net>
 <ca07bff2-cb4f-4cd4-a191-249cb229840b@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:40:04 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="TFSzwg9zEWICKE4g7mPu9w";
	logging-data="6618"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1h42ja4aQgLL6iUv6gP7A"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16
In-Reply-To: 
 <ca07bff2-cb4f-4cd4-a191-249cb229840b@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tRp1qoajRl/8syXVR+O8PYRsJ/c=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-02-08T18:40:02-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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