Re: access / freeing memory

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"Gautier direct_replies_not_read" <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> writes:

> The need to instanciate "Unchecked_Deallocation" and its name
> are there for the explained reasons. Personnally I find it a
> perverse detail in Ada's design, because it deliberately
> discourages using it, although a memory leak is not much better
> than misusing "Dispose" and surely far less easy to find.

True.  I think the original designers of Ada 83 imagined that garbage
collection would be commonly supported, so Unchecked_Deallocation would
be rarely needed (just like Unchecked_Conversion is rarely needed).  If
you believe that, the big ugly name makes sense.

- Bob