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!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Allocators design flaw Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 16:36:35 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: MajGvm9MbNtGBKE7r8NgYA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Language: en-US Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:48460 Date: 2017-10-14T16:36:35+02:00 List-Id: On 2017-10-14 16:24, Victor Porton wrote: > I mean, it is because we cannot change C standard for better compatibility > with Ada. But we can change Ada 202x for better compatibility with C > libraries. There is nothing incompatible in what you described. There are many C libraries (most?) which cannot deal with objects allocated outside, e.g. in an Ada pool. There was never a big problem to communicate with such libraries. The only design flaw Ada has is what Simon referenced to [*]. This is specific to unconstrained Ada arrays which are incompatible with C anyway. ------------------ * Array address is the address of the first array element rather than the address of the array object. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de