TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:06:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
From: Mats Weber <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (15 lines)
Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> At 04:35 PM 10/1/98 -0400, Michael Feldman wrote:
> >Just for completeness - Ada has no (required) garbage collection.
>
>    Just for completeness, Ada does have required garbage collection, but
> only for a few specific types.  See A.4.5(88) for Ada.Strings.Unbounded.
> (It is not possible to implement this type and the corresponding wide type
> without garbage collection, although it can be done with reference
> counting, and without compaction.)

Well, GNAT does it the natural way, using Ada.Finalization.Controlled, without
garbage collection (or are we disagreeing on the definition of GC ?). Are you
saying their implementation is broken ?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2