From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,NICE_REPLY_A
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Custom Storage Pool questions
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:08:52 +0300
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID: <iqqtskF3losU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <e3c5c553-4a7f-408a-aaa7-60ec0b70202dn@googlegroups.com>
 <ly5yv1bxgy.fsf@pushface.org> <shtg99$tgd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <lywnnha7y1.fsf@pushface.org>
 <1d2551f4-8189-44ec-a54d-4a56a672bedcn@googlegroups.com>
 <c2d59417-398f-42a0-ab4b-b4f947325be0n@googlegroups.com>
 <si26q3$13l1$1@gioia.aioe.org> <lyo88r9e99.fsf@pushface.org>
 <si2ud7$fv2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <iqkevvFr27rU1@mid.individual.net>
 <si45ls$1goa$1@gioia.aioe.org> <iqloa8F3sptU1@mid.individual.net>
 <si4ell$1b25$1@gioia.aioe.org> <iqmgn0F8ftgU1@mid.individual.net>
 <si53ia$1vat$1@gioia.aioe.org> <iqoi4rFkbu6U1@mid.individual.net>
 <si77kd$rka$1@gioia.aioe.org> <iqqq5aF2vspU1@mid.individual.net>
 <si9dk7$pop$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net BcNXrclmzQ93CjU0mfQ5fQFq+M2Gd+k2bPUTtJNKLxLPouAC8e
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SR/mKUAcenKg0scptzj+VGs7TjY=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
In-Reply-To: <si9dk7$pop$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62786
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2021-09-20 10:35, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2021-09-20 09:05, Niklas Holsti wrote:


   [snipping context]


>> However, your semantic argument (as opposed to the overhead argument) 
>> seems to be based on an assumption that the objects "left over" in a 
>> local collection, and which thus are inaccessible, will still, 
>> somehow, participate in the later execution of the program, which is 
>> why you say that finalizing those objects would "corrupt" them.
>>
>> It seems to me that such continued participation is possible only if 
>> the objects contain tasks or are accessed through some kind of 
>> unchecked programming. Do you agree?
> 
> No. You can have them accessible over other access types with wider scopes:
> 
>     Collection_Pointer := new X;
>     Global_Pointer := Collection_Pointer.all'Unchecked_Access;
> 


So, unchecked programming, as I said.