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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!x6YkKUCkj2qHLwbKnVEeag.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Custom Storage Pool questions Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:16:25 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <1d2551f4-8189-44ec-a54d-4a56a672bedcn@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="45784"; posting-host="x6YkKUCkj2qHLwbKnVEeag.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org"; User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 Content-Language: en-US X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62867 List-Id: On 2021-09-29 16:41, Shark8 wrote: > On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 1:57:35 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> Come on. There never existed Ada compiler with GC. > Untrue; GNAT for JVM, and GNAT for DOTNET. Neither is full Ada, AFAIK. >> And nobody could even >> implement GC with the meaningless semantics of "collections" in the way, >> killing objects at random. Either with GC or without it, there must be >> no such thing as "collections." > How does this follow? Because the rule disregards any object use. No collector, manual or automatic can deal with that mess. > Finalization *isn't* random, it happens at well-defined places. Random = unrelated to the object's life time. > (And, IIRC, is idempotent; meaning that multiple calls have the same effect as a singular call.) Which is obviously not. >> And I suggest doing exactly nothing as opposed to *unsafe*, costly and >> meaningless behavior mandated by the standard now. >>> Every object in Ada has a specific declaration point, >>> initialization point, finalization point, and destruction point. There are >>> no exceptions. >> Yes, and how it that related to the issue? > Because these are the places that finalization (and deallocation/destruction) are defined to happen. So? How exactly any of this implies that the place of Finalization can be in a place other than the place of deallocation? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de