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: 103376,3606a072272ee7d2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: differentiating finalization causes Date: 1997/11/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 286521341 References: <01bce4a2$b0ad17e0$020c6dce@my-pc.neosoft.com> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-11-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <01bce4a2$b0ad17e0$020c6dce@my-pc.neosoft.com>, "Pat Rogers" wrote: >For a type descended from Controlled, I need to be able to differentiate >finalization due to object destruction from finalization due to assignment >("value destruction", if you will). This issue pops up from time to time, but something about it strikes me as odd. Can you explain more about why you need to differentiate between the two cases? What about making the type limited? That would make the issue disappear, because no assignment is allowed. You could even export a Copy operation if you need to. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271