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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,565ee1c43df7874f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-09-12 09:12:28 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: john.nospam@nospamassen.nospamdemon.co.uk (John McCabe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: array of operations
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:15:55 GMT
Message-ID: <3d80bd8d.30112108@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <alkt6b$t73$1@e3k.asi.ansaldo.it> <3D7E0EB1.2070708@attbi.com>
 <all5t1$f16$1@news.iucc.ac.il> <7vfzwh9dkl.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no>
 <aln1n2$sbq$1@news.iucc.ac.il> <unvlhis8u8s9e5@corp.supernews.com>
 <alpi26$rr6$1@news.iucc.ac.il> <3D80A553.5030208@attbi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1031847148 15860 158.152.226.81 (12 Sep 2002
 16:12:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:12:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28869
Date: 2002-09-12T16:15:55+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:32:10 GMT, Mark Biggar
<mark.a.biggar@attbi.com> wrote:

>Ehud Lamm wrote:
>>>Not true. Since it is always OK to take 'Unchecked_Access of a parameter
>>>of a tagged type in Ada 95, you generally do not need to explicitly use
>>>"aliased". Claw uses this extensively to provide an interface which is
>>>mostly without access types, yet internally everything is linked
>>>together. (Claw uses finalization to prevent dangling pointers in this
>>>case).
>
>> Sure. You can rephrase what I wrote, "You usually need to decalre aliased
>> objects, or use 'Unchecked_Access." :-)
>
>um, tagged objects are by definition aliased, see ARM 3.10(9).  No need
>for an explisit declaration.

Do you mean this bit:

"and a formal parameter or generic formal object of a tagged type are
defined to be aliased"?

Note the word "generic". As far as I can see, you are mistaken.