🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6497@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>From rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang):
>>>   It's safe to do so:
>>>     1) When the variable goes out of scope
>>>     2) When the programmer specifies that it's to be destroyed sooner.
>> 
>>   If there's any explicit pointer manipulation, these conditions
>> aren't sufficient, because an object can be pointed to in more than
>> one place.  
>
>   True, but the basic thrust of the position is that the programmer
>   should generally not use pointers explicitly; rather, the use of 
>   pointers should be made safe via encapsulation within a secure ADT.

Whether a reference to a shared object is a pointer, or is hidden via some
clever encapsulation, I can't see how the programmer can be expected to know
when to explicitly deallocate the reference without maintaining reference
counts (whether he does it, or the ADT - it's still reference counting) or
relying on GC (or assuming that references are _never_ shared - which seems
like a simplistic assumption).

I am (as we speak) trying to implement a ADT (in Ada) which contains objects
whose lifetimes are not lexically scoped and to which many other objects may
refer.  I'd be very happy to avoid reference counts and GC if someone can
suggest a way to do so!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WITH disclaimer; USE disclaimer;
                     
    Steve Tynor
    Georgia Tech Research Institute
    Artificial Intelligence Branch
    tynor@prism.gatech.edu