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: 1997/07/20
Message-ID: <33D26588.7247@bix.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 257872243
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: 1997-07-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


A second problem, unrelated to access pointers, is that Initialize and
Adjust become superfluous.  Since you can't assume that either has been
called for a particular object, every routine that uses an object must
first detect whether it was Initialized/Adjusted and if not, do the
appropriate things.  But that means the sole effect of coding an
Initialize/Adjust is a (probably slight) advance in the time at which
the object will Initialized/Adjusted.