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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Dynamic allocation in the predefined language environment
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 13:29:59 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <mnh5r7$ajs$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: 
 <559a623d$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk><873811cre5.fsf@theworld.com>
 <lytwthxq1t.fsf@pushface.org><mneojs$i9p$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <ly4mlhx94q.fsf@pushface.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1436293800 10876 24.196.82.226 (7 Jul 2015 18:30:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:30:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:26686
Date: 2015-07-07T13:29:59-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
news:ly4mlhx94q.fsf@pushface.org...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>
>> "Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message
>> news:lytwthxq1t.fsf@pushface.org...
>>> Bob Duff <bobduff@theworld.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Yes, the predefined containers packages unfortunately don't allow you
>>>> to specify the storage pool.
>>>
>>> An advantage of the Booch Components!
>>
>> Which works because there is only a single implementation of both the
>> specs and bodies. If you don't specify the contents of the bodies,
>> specifying the storage pool is nearly useless (the main use would be
>> to use some sort of debugging pool), as the only pool implementations
>> would have the same properties as the global default storage pool.
>
> Come to think, the time we used this was as the storage pool for
> fixed-size objects, pointers to which were held in a bounded container.

Exactly, that's what you want to do. But unless you put severe constraints 
on the implementation, you can't assume anything about the size of the 
objects allocated, so such techniques don't work (portably at least).

                              Randy.