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,ed6a891101ff4e06
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Freeing Pointers to classwide types
Date: 1998/10/09
Message-ID: <m3emsix65f.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 399199642
Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net
References: <1ftmFTC69GA.191@samson.airnet.net>
 <360b26a1.41575272@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6ugeu2$79u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360c4a70.29707515@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6uifpt$e98$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360d1380.165146@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6ulj29$ne3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360e790d.241368@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6umkl8$qbm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360f143c.39974468@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6uo8mt$el9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360fc072.1728326@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6uokru$lbi$1@uuneo.neosoft.com>
 <360fec6e.12989714@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6upond$4lc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <361126ef.4269711@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <36127a1c.276097@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6uuo50$1pg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <36131a1b.34896409@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <87iui4bs8c.fsf@zaphod.enst.fr>
 <3613a5b1.186262@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6v15au$7t0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 18:19:05 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes:

> The answer is no, but so what? This is like asking if there is a way to
> define a function without using the function keyword, or whether there is
> a way to have concurrent execution without using the task keyword.
> Unchecked_Deallocation is for use in such contexts, why on earth worry
> about whether you can do unchecked deallocations without using
> Unchecked_Deallocation?

There are techniques for doing memory reclaimation that don't require
the use of Unchecked_Deallocation.

I think the issue is, Should you use UD without also specifying a
storage pool too?  I would answer, No.  It has been my experience that
using the UD off-the-shelf is a recipe for disaster.