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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b550c25b7ecf7e27
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Tom Moran <tmoran@bix.com>
Subject: Re: Adjust bug? re-post
Date: 1997/07/19
Message-ID: <33D1A827.61A7@bix.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 257808110
References: <33D11675.2FDB@bix.com> <dewar.869356121@merv>
Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
Reply-To: tmoran@bix.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar said:
> This seems obviously legal, and I don't see why you consider it unfortunate.
type Things is new Ada.Finalization.Controlled with private;
procedure Initialize(x:in out Things);
procedure Adjust(x:in out Things);
procedure Finalize(x:in out Things);
type self_access is access all Things;
private
type Things is new Ada.Finalization.Controlled with record
  Myself : self_access;
end record;
...
If both Initialize and Adjust do
  x.myself := x'unchecked_access;
then, since Finalize can never assume that Initialize or Adjust has ever
been performed on the object,  Finalize can not assume that
  x.myself = x'unchecked_access
This certainly makes it harder to include Things in linked data
structures, and I consider that unfortunate.