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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9aa4352fa83d37dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-01 15:38:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: library level required or not? Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:37:02 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <1047ia2f8afucd9@corp.supernews.com> References: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5992 Date: 2004-03-01T17:37:02-06:00 List-Id: "Marius Amado Alves" wrote in message news:mailman.48.1078160769.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org... > Language lawers, please help me. > > I have in my notes that an object, of a type declared in package Ada or > descendants, is not required to be defined at library level, even if the type > is controlled. (I know I can declare unbounded strings, which are clearly > controlled, in a 'main' procedure.) > > I vaguely recall deriving this rule from the RM, but now I cannot find the > clause. Is the rule true? By what clause? *Types* derived from Controlled have to be at library-level. *Objects* have no such restrictions. I can't point at a rule that says that, for the simple reason that there isn't any. In the absense of a specific rule, of course, there is no restriction, and that's the case here. Randy.