Re: access types and head pains

["chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com>]

> I suspect your message read "av actual ...". The parameter av is mode in
> out, which means Do_S may modify it. You can't change
> at'unchecked_access, because then it wouldn't be at'unchecked_access any
> more. Unless you have "av := ...;" in Do_S, why not just make it mode
> in?

I'll try that.  I'm a little confused though.

(let's change the name "at" to al_t, i quickly wrote down the example with short
identifiers of which at happened to appear, i know it's a reserved word!  i was
tired)

a_ac    is a general access type

if av has mode "in" then how can i modify the fields of the record.  surely this
would be dissallowed or does it mean you can't modify it's existance/null status
but can modify it's data?


Chris