From: Thomas Handler <th@umundum.vol.at>
Subject: Re: accesibility level problem
Date: 1999/03/02
Date: 1999-03-02T19:01:39+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36DC4283.68ECFA50@umundum.vol.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: wccr9r99jge.fsf@world.std.com
Robert A Duff wrote:
>
Robert,
> I think the original poster wondered why it was all based on the access
> type, and not on the object. The problem is that the object declaration
> doesn't contain any information about where the thing points, and we
> didn't want to do it all with run-time checks (although Tucker invented
> access parameters fairly late in the game, and they allow a limited form
> of run-time checking).
This is exactly where my problem was buried - I knew I had the
dependance on the access type but it was not clear for me why - I even
wasn't able to read this info the right way fro the ARM...
Thomas Handler
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-03-02 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-02-19 0:00 accesibility level problem Thomas Handler
1999-02-19 0:00 ` steve quinlan
1999-02-20 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-20 0:00 ` Steve Quinlan
1999-02-21 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-01 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-03-02 0:00 ` Thomas Handler [this message]
1999-02-21 0:00 ` Thomas Handler
1999-02-21 0:00 ` Steve Quinlan
1999-02-22 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-22 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Thomas Handler
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox