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-Thread: 103376,a3f460aaba1863e2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Lucretia" <lucretia9@lycos.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Private primitive operations available to entire package
 hierarchy. Can it be done?
Date: 28 Jul 2005 03:09:39 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1122545378.984920.272260@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1120752411.808598.292980@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <JvydnaU7hKTA4FDfRVn-qg@megapath.net>
   <1121269243.013754.57720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <iLadnZJJWoBEFEDfRVn-sA@megapath.net>
   <1121883276.400592.326630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <tIKdnT1qj9YejELfRVn-2Q@megapath.net>
   <1122315253.757948.150350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
   <8_ydncLVTeRn5njfRVn-jA@megapath.net>
   <1122485760.918191.274380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <grqdnRKB5o86ZnrfRVn-pA@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.74.199.42
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1122545385 9759 127.0.0.1 (28 Jul 2005 10:09:45
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:09:45 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <grqdnRKB5o86ZnrfRVn-pA@megapath.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.74.199.42;
   posting-account=G-J9fgwAAADgpzBiEyy5tO4f8MX5fbpw
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3814
Date: 2005-07-28T03:09:39-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

<quote>
> Add(Some_Sizer, Self.Button'Unchecked_Access..=AD.);

Is this in the user code, or in the implementation of the interface? If
it's
in the implementation of the interface, do whatever you have to do. If
it's
in the user code, though, I'd claim that the Add routine is incorrectly

specified -- it should simply pass the Button_Type object and the code
*internal* to the binding should be creating the access types.
</quote>

Yes, that line would be in the user code as Add is a primitive to
wx.Core.Sizer.Sizer_Type.

<quote>
> and having all primitives take an access parameter as the controlling
> parameter.

That's awful. If you do that, you're requiring your user to do memory
management for you, rather than the other way around. They'll be forced
into
subpar syntax (explicit uses of aliased and 'Access), have runtime
accessibility errors, and other nastyness. And they would have no way
to use
the containers library do the storage management for them.
</quote>

What's awful? Using access parameters as the controlling type or just
using instances the way I have been doing?

I don't really see what you mean about forcing the user into handling
the memory management. subpar syntax? Dunno what that means :-/

<quote>
And the implementation of Add:


    procedure Add (Sizer : Sizer_Type; Button : Button_Type'Class) is
         My_Button : Any_Button_Access_Type :=3D Button'Unchecked_Access;

         My_Sizer : Any_Sizer_Access_Type :=3D Sizer'Unchecked_Access;
    begin
         -- Call the low level (C) routines:
         wx_Add (My_Sizer, My_Button);
         -- etc.
    end Add;

You might need to do some type conversions on the access types, but
that's
</quote>

I thought that it was considered bad to get the access of a parameter
in this way?