From: Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com>
Subject: Re: Accessibility levels, continued
Date: 1999/02/05
Date: 1999-02-05T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36BB771D.1825E9C@averstar.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 79dse1$ut4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
adam@irvine.com wrote:
>
> Should this program raise an exception?
No. The "accessibility level" of Var passes through the
two calls with access parameters, meaning that your line marked
[1] is equivalent to "Acc_Var := Var'access;" as far
as accessibility checking, with the difference that the check is
performed at run-time rather than compile-time.
> procedure Test is
>
> type T is record
> Field : Integer;
> end record;
>
> Var : T;
>
> type Access_T is access T;
> Acc_Var : Access_T;
>
> procedure Outer (Outer_Param : access T) is
>
> procedure Inner (Inner_Param : access T) is
> begin
> Acc_Var := Inner_Param.all'access; -- [1]
> end Inner;
>
> begin
> Inner (Outer_Param);
> end Outer;
>
> begin
> Outer (Var'access); -- [2]
> end Test;
>
> It doesn't look like it should, if you follow the intent of the
> accessibility rules in 3.10.2. Acc_Var will be assigned to an access
> to Var, and since Acc_Var's type does not have a deeper accessibility
> level than Var, everything should be fine. However, I believe that
> the way the RM is written, the program should raise Program_Error at
> line [1]. Here's what seems to be going on:
>
> 3.10.2(29): 'ACCESS will succeed as long as the accessibility level of
> Inner_Param.all is not deeper than that of Access_T.
>
> 3.10.2(15): The accessibility level of Inner_Param.all equals that of
> Inner_Param's type, which is an anonymous access type.
>
> 3.10.2(13): The accessibility level of Inner_Param's anonymous access
> type is the same as that of the view designated by the actual, in this
> case Outer_Param.
>
> I don't know the exact meaning of the "view designated by the actual"
> when the actual is another parameter. I haven't found any reason to
> believe that the last clause of the above paragraph is different from,
> more simply, "the accessibility level of Outer_Param".
No, it is the accessibility level of the object *designated* by
Outer_Param. Remember that "designated" by is the same as
"pointed-to" by. Ada mantra: "Pointers point, access values designate,
names denote."
> ... Which leads
> us to:
>
> 3.10.2(7): Since Outer_Param is a parameter, the accessibility level
> of Outer_Param is the same as its master, Outer.
If you had written Outer_Param'Access, then you would be
interested in the accessibility level of Outer_Param itself.
But if you just write Outer_Param, you are interested in
the accessibility level of the thing it points at (Outer_Param.all).
"Access parameters" (aka parameters of an anonymous access type)
are unique in that they "carry" along at run-time the accessibility
level of the thing they point at (their designated object).
> Stringing everything together, the accessibility level of
> Inner_Param.all'access is the same as that of Outer; and since the
> accessibility level of Outer is deeper than that of Access_T, the
> program should raise a Program_Error.
Nope. The accessibility level of Inner_Param.all is the same
as that of Outer_param.all, which is the same as Var.
> Is this the right interpretation? Or did I miss something?
You missed (no William Tell award today ;-).
> -- thanks, Adam
-Tuck
--
-Tucker Taft stt@averstar.com http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions (www.averstar.com/tools)
AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.) Burlington, MA USA
prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-02-05 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-02-05 0:00 Accessibility levels, continued adam
1999-02-05 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-02-05 0:00 ` adam
1999-02-05 0:00 ` Tucker Taft [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox