Re: Preventing Unchecked_Deallocation?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Pascal Obry" <pascal@obry.net> wrote in message 
news:4F337215.3050802@obry.net...
> Randy,
>
>> My personal theory is the only reason for an Ada 95 program to use 
>> "access"
>> in a specification is to get the effect of "in out" parameters for
>> functions, and that's finally fixed for Ada 2012. I don't think there 
>> *ever*
>
> You also need access type for the Distributed Annex. And this is still
> needed with Ada 2012 and will probably forever.

Yes and no: you can't alway marshall an access value, and it actually makes 
more sense to marshall the designated object. (But I admit I don't have any 
experience in this area - I've always used sockets - so I'll stop before I 
dig a deeper hole. ;-)

> But we also want to
> distinguish between access type and dynamic allocation. My distributed
> application have access types but no dynamic allocation.

Right, and that's why I said that general access types shouldn't have had 
any allocation at all. It would have been easy enough to do conversions in 
the case that it was needed, and it would prevent the erroneous execution 
problems with deallocation of a general access value. (It only works if it 
is from the "right" pool, and there is no way to guarantee that if 
statically allocated objects also can be used.)

                                     Randy.