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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fd63afa4dc364b7e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-17 01:38:53 PST
Path: 
 nntp.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Better support for garbage collection
Date: 15 Mar 2001 17:36:01 -0500
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Message-ID: <u8zm64q3y.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
References: <98m938$2iod0$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
 <wcc1ys0du8j.fsf@world.std.com> <98pgs1$32up7$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 984696612 11314 128.183.220.71 (15 Mar 2001
 22:50:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Mar 2001 22:50:12 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.6
Xref: nntp.stanford.edu comp.lang.ada:91498
Date: 2001-03-15T22:50:12+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> writes:

> <snip good stuff>
> 
> The question that remains, to my mind, of what action for me to take next
> reduces to three basic possibilities: (a) make the amendments suggested
> herein, and send the proposal to the ARG (which e-mail address would be
> best?); (b) continue discussing the proposal in this newsgroup (or
> elsewhere?), and submit it later, after perhaps much refinement; (c) forget
> it.

I suggest you actually implement it, and implement an example
application that benefits from garbage collection. 

Implementing the GC bodies will catch other mistakes like missing
function parameters.

Implementing an example application will help the rest of us
understand why we should support (or oppose :) this. In particular, it
should show why that application can't use what is already provided by
storage pools.

Then we can discuss it, and _then_ we can submit it to the ARG.

-- 
-- Stephe