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,fd63afa4dc364b7e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-16 13:31:39 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!209.50.235.254!europa.netcrusader.net!63.208.208.143!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!bobduff
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Better support for garbage collection
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Message-ID: <wccr8zxr77u.fsf@world.std.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:47:49 GMT
References: <98m938$2iod0$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <861ys03t2f.fsf@acm.org>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5755
Date: 2001-03-16T16:47:49+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org> writes:

> What I would like to see in Ada is to have an allocator where you pass
> the pool object at allocation and deallocation. One pool per type is
> not very flexible.

I agree.  I'm currently working on a tool that analyzes programs, and I
store the symbol table for each source file in a separate storage pool,
so I can deallocate them conveniently and efficiently as things become
obsolete and whatnot.  It's a pain in the neck to implement that in Ada,
and it's impossible to make it task safe (but I don't happen to need
tasks in that part of my tool).

> Why did Ada 95 include pool objects only on a per type basis?

I don't know.  Perhaps Tucker can tell us.

What syntax would you suggest?

- Bob