From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,50137bb64a119cfc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-21 07:03:47 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!spool0900.news.uu.net!reader0900.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:03:45 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030130
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: "access constant" discriminant
References: <_TO1a.14664$9y2.6601@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
 <3CS1a.55972$2H6.1357@sccrnsc04> <3E4E9248.3E71D984@adaworks.com>
 <zwb0dJM87esk@eisner.encompasserve.org> <uu1eyluui.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <1ec946d1.0302201642.66eb93e5@posting.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1ec946d1.0302201642.66eb93e5@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1045839826.87966@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1045839826 reader0.ash.ops.us.uu.net 29130 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:34342
Date: 2003-02-21T10:03:45-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Matthew Heaney wrote:
> Access parameters carry accessibility information around, to check
> that an object in an outer scope doesn't refer to another object in an
> inner scope.

Do they actually carry this information around?
I thought that the language rules just prevented
such "inner" addresses from winding up in an
"outer" pointer, not that the pointers themselves
were "fat".