Re: Visibility of Indexing aspects

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 4:46:16 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Dan'l Miller" wrote in message 
> news:cc25c794-5986-4f6e-9d5e-0ec20a4f47d0@googlegroups.com...
> ...
> >Ummmmmmmmm, what is so incredibly "expensive" about Element => 
> >Self.Data(Index)'Access in OP?
> 
> Nothing is expensive about *that*, but it's also very unsafe by itself (this 
> either prevents a container from ever reusuing memory, or essentially 
> requires being OK with dangling pointers and the erroneousness that they 
> cause).
> 
> Our requirement was that the user-defined dereference mechanism needs to be 
> safe (at least possible to be safe), and that requires the container to be 
> able to find out when the dereference ceases to exist. At that point, the 
> container can free the underlying memory if need be. (For an extreme 
> example, consider a persistent container, where the object only should exist 
> in memory so long as it is being used there.) The design that we came up 
> with for Ada 2012 uses finalization for this notification; we looked at 
> other mechanisms, but they would have had similar overhead.
> 
> The Ada containers use the finalization to clear the tampering check (which 
> prevents deleting of elements while the dereference exists); other uses are 
> possible, of course.
> 
> Without these sorts of checks, Ada containers would be no more safe than C 
> code. In particular, Ada programmers do not expect checked indexing to be 
> unsafe, so syntax of C(I) being unsafe would be a particular surprise.
> 
>                                     Randy.

My reference-counting of aliases in my reply above concurs with what you saying in this reply of yours.

Randy, you make a strong argument for the compiler/language tracking the lifetime of aliases instead of leaving it as a library and/or app-domain responsibility.