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: 103376,2866100c9a2b8ce7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Type conversion between access types (was: Free'ing extended
 types)
Date: 1996/05/21
Message-ID: <4nr20u$mv9@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 155839167
distribution: world
references: <leschkes.832628057@ferret>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
x-xxmessage-id: <ADC748F174011B17@obibicut.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Scott Leschke writes:

"First I was
 slightly surprised that the type conversions in the example code Bob Duff
 posted were allowed since I know that independent access types (even those
 specifying the same type) are viewed as denoting separate pools and as such
 type conversions between them is not allowed."


I presume that this also means that access types declared inside a generic
package are not compatable with other access types? 


e.g. 

generic
	type element is private;
package x is

	type ptr is access element;
end;


package y is

	type a is private;

	type ptr is access a;
	
	package new_ptr_package is new x(a);
	
	
end;

Is new_ptr_package.ptr not type convertible with y.ptr?
Is it likely that compilers would use different storage pools for
these two types?

Dale