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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,45d937e5cf2567,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news2.volia.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: entries and access parameters
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:55:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4hn8k3FdjobU1@individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: individual.net udZhZsj4rtfV65wCXDvyfAHzXyt0E8MMxVLs7PyoGcfW/fKlE=
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5662
Date: 2006-07-13T17:55:58+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello, 

I'm trying to find in the 95 rationale the explanation for this point

http://www.adahome.com/rm95/rm9x-09-05-02.html

(13) An entry_declaration in a task declaration shall not contain a
specification for an access parameter (See 3.10)

3.10 is simply the section on access types and no mention of entries is
made. 

I'm curious about that prohibition, mainly to know if workarounding it with
a type like

type Obj_Access is access all ...

is legal or will give further problems. Gnat compiles these without problem.

I've failed to find anything in the rationale (though I have remembrances of
having read something about this in the past relating to accessibility
checks being the problem). I've found, however, this paragraph in a doc
about Gnat Runtime:

"The entry declaration must be placed inside the task specification. (...)
Access parameters are not permitted, though parameters of any access type
are, of course, allowed."
http://www.iuma.ulpgc.es/users/jmiranda/gnat-rts/node21.htm

So I guess the above workaround is legit.

Any comments on why the restriction are welcome! BTW, if the workaround is
legit, I've found a bug in gnatgpl06 that I'll post in a separate message.