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: 103376,56131a5c3acc678e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-04 11:14:59 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Question about OO programming in Ada
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:13:30 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vsv1ti6lpd8q79@corp.supernews.com>
References: <8urxb.19482$sb4.18182@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <ygAxb.8265$lF6.7551@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <1792884.HtYz4Yv8lY@linux1.krischik.com>
 <bhjosvgrsg4mokscld2057arufu8pv1ndn@4ax.com> <uhe0idzbm.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <mghrsvguffpi8v7m6vamr8k4j38j8ufvkp@4ax.com> <m3y8tut6b3.fsf@insalien.org>
 <b0prsv8mp1a2qtadss47j7fpgg6nqumj8u@4ax.com>
 <1070466281.168920@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <ud6b5eexz.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <1070490862.478119@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <PfudnS_16cQ3EVOi4p2dnA@comcast.com>
 <2prtsvgmt5lt3u1ulb5dvh8ba5nulfl3l3@4ax.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3131
Date: 2003-12-04T13:13:30-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:2prtsvgmt5lt3u1ulb5dvh8ba5nulfl3l3@4ax.com...
> The point is that calling Free from Finalize is revolting. This would
> not be necessary if finalization of the type Pointer called
> deallocator in addition to a call to Finalize.

It's not just revolting, it's dangerous. What if "Object" is declared
locally:

    declare
        X : Object;
    begin

You're giving the heap memory that isn't its in the first place.

More commonly, Object will be a component of some other record. In either
case, having a "hidden" restriction that Object can only be allocated (the
thing you want to avoid when possible!) is really, really dumb.

I'd expect that to be true in C++ as well -- or does C++ not even allow
statically allocated class objects and class components? (If they always
have to be allocated from the heap, there is no problem.)

                       Randy.