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 10:47:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail From: john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John McCabe) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: array of operations Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:45:58 GMT Message-ID: <3d80d274.1749757@news.demon.co.uk> References: <3D7E0EB1.2070708@attbi.com> <7vfzwh9dkl.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> <3D80A553.5030208@attbi.com> <3d80bd8d.30112108@news.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: assen.demon.co.uk X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1031852850 27015 158.152.218.101 (12 Sep 2002 17:47:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:47:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28881 Date: 2002-09-12T17:45:58+00:00 List-Id: "David C. Hoos" wrote: >Note the word "or". As far as I can see, _you_ are mistaken. Bit of both by the looks of it. The phrase I responded to sounded like it was suggesting *any* tagged object was, by defnition, aliased. Should have made it more explicit that he meant any tagged parameter. By the way - I really *don't* need to have messages sent as email as well!! >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John McCabe" >Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada >To: >Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:15 AM >Subject: Re: array of operations > > >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:32:10 GMT, Mark Biggar >> 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. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> comp.lang.ada mailing list >> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org >> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada >> > Best Regards John McCabe