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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,7d83a6223f4f2443 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Run-time accessibility checks Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <68719e0e-af31-488a-b45c-f8db93fb70d2@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:08:29 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Dec 2008 10:08:29 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 5d8a9575.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=Z>PGRHCJ]YB=8m7nZkdN^@McF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbI@LK^@RkgBH:Vb`K4>i8O X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:3927 Date: 2008-12-11T10:08:29+01:00 List-Id: On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:03:23 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote: > OTOH, a fully dynamic model would only fail when the pointer really > is dangling, because the accessibility would stay with the access type and > there would never be any conversion to the static world. So that would only > represent a real bug. But of course it is a lot more expensive at runtime. So far the problem is that accessibility check suggests that a pointer is dangled when it is actually not. > I'm going to write up a proposal for a fully dynamic model. I don't really > expect it to get anywhere, but at least we'll have it around the next time > someone starts realizing that static accessibility is complete junk. Well, but I just don't need that stuff from the compiler. It merely blows the language up giving nothing in return. When I (forced to) use a pointer I know a lot more about the life time of the objects involved than the compiler. I just want be able to express this semantics myself. For this I need fat pointers with the "fat" defined myself. Give the programmer abstract access types and scrap this dynamic accessibility stuff altogether. [And anonymous access types as well.] -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de