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,bd40601768eaf8fd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Mark Lundquist Subject: Re: 'constant functions' and access constant params (was Re: Array of Variant Records Question...) Date: 1999/09/22 Message-ID: <37E96268.34C4594E@rational.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 528428417 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <7r5vh3$imu1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com> <37d6a45c@news1.prserv.net> <37d6ccb6@news1.prserv.net> <7r77i8$i08$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d7c116@news1.prserv.net> <7r8t21$ov5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d822a1@news1.prserv.net> <7reg02$t83@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <37DE8D09.C863CBC9@rational.com> <7roohh$s6r@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <37e01168@news1.prserv.net> <7rp86o$c6h@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <37E18CC6.C8D431B@rational.com> <7rs8bn$s6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <37e2e58c@news1.prserv.net> <7s9nd0$cbe@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com> <37E95E14.DF911A2F@rational.com> Organization: Rational Software Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-09-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: My post must have been too long, because I got sloppy at the end. There's something about reading my posts after it's too late to change them, that helps me see where I goofed up... :-) Mark Lundquist (c'est moi) wrote: > > We simply do not agree that it is worth closing the loophole > > created by this feature. > > > > Two points: > > 1) The access-to-constant parameter proposal is what you at times have been saying is > the "simple" thing that it's "all you're asking for". If that's really true, then > nobody is disagreeing with you. > > 2) The real loophole is created by unchecked programming, and also by the "Rosen > Trick". But that has nothing to do with access parameters. > It's implied by (1), but I ought to say it explicitly : I do agree with you that not having access-to-constant parameters is a bit of a loophole and that it's worth closing. As for (2), the Rosen Trick is only a loophole in the case of non-private types, and I also agree that loophole should be closed (whether in the case of access parameters or not). -- Mark Lundquist Senior Software Engineer Rational Software Development Solutions Business Unit UNIX Suites Group Aloha, OR, USA