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: 103376,2308afbbe4ecec0b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Tucker Taft Subject: Re: Subverting 'Access for Sub-programs Date: 1999/08/09 Message-ID: <37AEF9EC.74154432@averstar.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 510637837 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.burl.averstar.com References: <7ocqru$rrm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7oeini$1pb$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics) Burlington, MA USA Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-08-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > ... > Tucker and I discussed a design for allowing nested type extensions for > *limited* types, which would have prevented the dangling pointer issues. > I don't remember if we ever formally proposed this idea in public, or if > we killed it ourselves before it was seen by any reviewers. I think it > involved a lot of implementation burden, and I have vague recollections > of worrying about the mob of generic-body-sharing compiler writers we > would have had to flee from... It isn't that bad. It was all described in the Language Design Note that you posted to this News thread just a little while ago. Any additional information needed in the way of static links, displays, etc., gets added to the representation of the type as part of the nested (limited) extension. > > > - Bob -- -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