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: 103376,87557ce53b069315
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com>
Subject: Re: meaning of "current instance"
Date: 1999/11/15
Message-ID: <383080F8.BB2BD91A@averstar.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 549008676
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.burl.averstar.com
References: <38304D11.204F156A@averstar.com>
 <xkZX3.14600$dp.430483@typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics)  Burlington, MA  USA
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-11-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

tmoran@bix.com wrote:
> 
> >This is illegal, even if you use 'Unchecked_Access, unless T is limited,
> Two out of the three compilers on my machine accept:
>   package junk1 is
>      type T is tagged private;
>      function Init (O : access T'Class) return integer;
>   private
>      type T is
>        tagged record
>          I : Integer := Init (T'Access);
>        end record;
>   end junk1;
> with no "limited".  I take it they are in error?

Yes.  Even my favorite front end missed this one (but it won't for
long ;-).

-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