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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,470860aa3e635a7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT for MS Visual Studio
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:40:57 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1191876057.894364.122680@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
References: <ltfy11y10v.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
   <TJSdncwgUrlA-2HbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com>
   <4xsl4zw3bp.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
   <YcCdnaCp_dEWKmLbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@comcast.com>
   <fdsf0r$q0t$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
   <1191357491.860178.230380@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
   <4702ADCC.7080209@obry.net>
   <1191439439.120567.172630@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
   <4703F02D.3030207@obry.net>
   <1191682021.844225.236870@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
   <4707A3D0.3070702@obry.net>
   <1tq0h0fb74sxe$.2ys0qzmfxcqo.dlg@40tude.net>
   <4707C0CC.1000108@obry.net>
   <1aa677sd3f3ox.k8awuo7pj13r.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1191702767.598768.210960@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
   <1aqbpv0czr253.wrmcd70o5se5$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1191792620.535744.132500@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
   <liz4nefx8mhu$.qpy964l7mn99$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1191839564.304635.30030@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <46md5qdz3w51.uev498rne1un.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.3.224.139
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1191876058 4508 127.0.0.1 (8 Oct 2007 20:40:58
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:40:58 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <46md5qdz3w51.uev498rne1un.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.3.224.139;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2359
Date: 2007-10-08T13:40:57-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 8 Pa , 17:10, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

> There is no difference, because in a higher level language reading might do
> bookkeeping as well.

But the object model would be formulated accordingly to take this into
account.
In Ada, the object model and concurrency model are formulated in such
a way that "reading" an encapsulated container is meaningless and
therefore inconclusive.
We cannot say "I only read this container" and expect anything based
on AARM, because there is nothing in AARM that would give any meaning
to this "reading".
Calling a subprogram is not "reading".

> The contract is silent about what happens when you are not allowed to
> access the object. Anything can.

Yes.

--
Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com