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,c233446a6027f1ed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-18 18:44:18 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: access / freeing memory
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wccfzyglchp.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:42:26 GMT
References: <mailman.1026804243.16337.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27241
Date: 2002-07-19T01:42:26+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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