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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5653f0bd43045b85 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com Subject: Re: garbage collection Date: 1999/08/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 515216645 References: X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net 935175259 207.214.211.145 (Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:54:19 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:54:19 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-08-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > > No. When the access type goes out of scope there is clearly no way > > the storage can be on the target end of a pointer, so the > > implementation should free that storage. > > Just to clarify, most implementations don't actually do this. Why? Is an implementation not easy, efficient, and predictable? And of course overidable by the user simply by raising the level where the access type is declared. It seems undesirable to have to specify a number, big enough, but not too big, for the amount of storage needed when you merely want to get automatic deallocation.