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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,XPRIO autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Custom Storage Pool questions
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:40:18 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <sib9lk$nk2$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <e3c5c553-4a7f-408a-aaa7-60ec0b70202dn@googlegroups.com> <ly5yv1bxgy.fsf@pushface.org> <shtg99$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> <iqqtskF3losU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:40:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk; posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="24194"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62798
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Niklas Holsti" <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote in message 
news:iqqtskF3losU1@mid.individual.net...
> 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.

Yup, and when you do stuff like that, you deserve for the compiler to shoot 
you in the head.

                       Randy.