Re: [Q] non-limited record and "self-pointer"

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message
news:b4682ab7.0402131624.45fbc352@posting.google.com...
...
> See also AI95-00225 (Amendment 200Y), which uses the term "if and only
> if" to make it clear that the current instance is not aliased and thus
> 'Access and 'Unchecked_Access cannot be used on it.

AI-225 is fairly clear that the Ada 95 rule is screwy, and should be fixed.
And the fix is to make the use of 'Access illegal unless the type is
explicitly declared to be limited. The AI goes on to say that the current
wording allows it to work sometimes, but the result is nonsense, because
compilers are allowed to make copies of the object, in which the 'Access
value would point to the wrong place.

It's also interesting that AI came about because Tucker posted a note about
a bug found in their compiler by a posting on comp.lang.ada. So it seems
that we've had this discussion before here, and that not all implementers
got the note. :-)

                    Randy.