Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Niklas Holsti Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Custom Storage Pool questions Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:08:52 +0300 Organization: Tidorum Ltd Lines: 25 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: 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: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.ada:49566 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.