Re: Q: Memory management

[Hannes Haug <Hannes.Haug@Student.Uni-Tuebingen.de>]

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> writes:

    Robert> In article
    Robert> <uvvybl91xtl.fsf@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Hannes
    Robert> Haug <Hannes.Haug@Student.Uni-Tuebingen.de> wrote:
    >> I think I didn't understand the concept uf unconstrained
    >> arrays. There are no constrained arrays. All arrays are
    >> constrained.

    Robert> All array *objects* are constrained.

That's what I meant.

    >> ... So there is no need to store bounds somewhere in the
    >> array's storage. But there are pointers that can point to
    >> arbitrary constrained arrays. But Pointer.all is still
    >> constrained. That the bounds are not known at compile time is
    >> not the fault of Pointer.all but of Pointer. So the storage for
    >> the bounds belongs to Pointer and not to Pointer.all. So
    >> Pointer.all'Address should be the address of the elements of
    >> the array. Is this view (at least logically) correct ?

    Robert> Well, sort of, but not really.  You're mixing
    Robert> implementation issues and semantic issues.

That's what I meant by "at least logically" ;-)

    Robert> [...]

 -hannes