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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4b758210c0900d03
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Protected object which never get finalized
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 07:35:47 -0500
Organization: The Wasteland
Message-ID: <nospam-53FA2E.07354714022010@news.aioe.org>
References: <op.u71i2edlvwnd5a@garhos>
NNTP-Posting-Host: LQJtZWzu+iKlBROuDg+IUg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9213
Date: 2010-02-14T07:35:47-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <op.u71i2edlvwnd5a@garhos>,
 Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> I may be not lucky : after the case of an object of a protected type 
> being  finalized too much soon, here is now that I have to do with an 
> object of a  protected type which never gets finalized (think I was 
> to use this latter  as a work around after long try failure with the 
> former, I'm really not  lucky at all).
> 
> Inquisitive peoples with interests in the case, may have a look at 
> the  following test : two protected types are defined, with exact 
> equivalent  definition. One is defined in a package, the other is 
> defined in the local  scope. An instance of the first (the one 
> defined  in the package), never  get finalized. An instance of the 
> second type (declared in the local  scope), goes through its normal 
> life.
> 
> But perhaps there's something I did not understood

I get the same result with gcc 4.3.4, but it works if protected type 
A_Type is public in P:

   package P is
      protected type A_Type is
      private
          Spy : Spies.Instance_Type
            (Client_Name => new String'("P.A_Type"));
      end;
   end P;

Type A_Type has its own private part, and this seems more comparable to 
the declaration of protected type B_Type. Is there any reason to make 
A_Type more opaque?

-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>