[omniORB] Allocation of memory for sequence "vars"

[Gary Duzan]

In Message <434BF06670A6784D8C9F85B6F598D48F022013AD at tvmailp1.rjr.com> ,
   "Visscher, Bruce" <VISSCHB at rjrt.com> wrote:

=>>    Michi Henning and I hashed this out on comp.object.corba a while
=>> back:
=>> 
=>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3D5A0E93.3060108
%40ics.forth.gr
=>>
=>>    It basically ended with Michi declaring it a problem with the spec
=>> and opening a defect against the C++ mapping with the OMG. I don't
=>> know if that ever went anywhere.
=>
=>Interesting read, but assuming that 
=>
=>{
=>  T_var t;
=>}
=>
=>is conforming code, I'm not sure that an implementation of a T_var that
=>doesn't initialize its T* in the default constructor is worth worrying
=>about!

   Expect that not initializing the T_var and initializing with an
invalid (e.g. null) T* look the same w.r.t. the spec, and there is
still a desire to (at least) check whether it is valid or not.

					Gary Duzan
					BBN Technologies