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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ed596f1f077b44e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Vance Christiaanse <cintech@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Primitive Operations Question
Date: 1996/08/01
Message-ID: <3201140D.2255@ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171487238
references: <31FE812C.7B3D@ix.netcom.com> <DvFC1u.FJG@world.std.com>
 <31FFBFC8.32C9@ix.netcom.com> <DvGqsu.K1n@world.std.com>
to: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Cintech Consulting
x-netcom-date: Thu Aug 01  7:29:05 PM CDT 1996
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: cintech@ix.netcom.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Date: 1996-08-01T19:29:05-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob wrote:
> Strange.  The word "tagged" appears nowhere in the definition in of
> "primitive subprogram" in 3.2.3, so it shouldn't make any difference.

I wrote:
>Well, type extension of a tagged type in a procedure _could_ lead to
>dangling references (see Rationale 4.3, package Outer).  I suspect
>that's why a compiler would be more careful to prevent it.

Bob wrote: 
> Umm, you can only create dangling refs if the derived type is more
> nested than the parent type.  And this is illegal -- that's a language
> rule, and has nothing to do with a particular compiler being careful.
> It also has nothing to do with which subprograms are primitive.  See the
> "accessibility rules".

Right.  I wasn't thinking clearly.

Vance

Vance Christiaanse
Cintech Consulting
cintech@ix.netcom.com