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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,aba1514f4a1fc450
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.83.74 with SMTP id o10mr1643806pay.33.1345990377965;
        Sun, 26 Aug 2012 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 a8ni56537322pbd.1!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.snarked.org!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!ihnp4.UCSD.Edu!nntp.ucr.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!news.glorb.com!news.unit0.net!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:58:42 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Have the Itanium critics all been proven wrong?
References: <5021874F.1747D0BF@sonic.net> <GPRWr.31944$Bw1.31300@newsfe05.iad>
 <k0gq97$li8$1@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk> <k0h6ef$jke$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <46f19bfc-930e-4f06-b5a6-c60f39cfda0c@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
 <k0r609$4ij$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <077b12f6-1196-4b5c-bbdb-04291b1ae616@q22g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
 <k0rree$lkn$1@speranza.aioe.org> <CC5730C5.1BC2E%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <k0t67b$b8r$1@speranza.aioe.org> <CC585119.1BCCC%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <k0uenp$fbg$1@speranza.aioe.org> <k0vo9u$fer$1@dont-email.me>
 <589825d2-d998-456a-9c37-c8ae13e1e7bc@e29g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
 <k10tdr$nm6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bb4e5231-142b-437c-8c2a-bbd6daf34df8@g2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
 <k12jul$t5q$1@dont-email.me>
 <eddaeeee-8cfa-402e-964a-e795c4590dbe@q22g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
 <k12shq$4ii$1@dont-email.me>
 <793f28d5-8d61-48e7-adc8-266356cecd26@cf4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <793f28d5-8d61-48e7-adc8-266356cecd26@cf4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <50350fb3$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Aug 2012 18:58:27 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 8a8f3d8a.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=VZ5nHG^FW3g]l@YUW5NBknMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkFOi;j7TObNbnc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jm[:C^86Q9H=`
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-22T18:58:27+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 22.08.12 17:59, Michael S wrote:
> My knowledge of Ada is rather rusty :(
> Is it correct to say that applying 'access attribute to auto objects
> is a syntax error and that the only possible way of getting access to
> such objects is by applying  'unchecked_access attribute?


I'd like or add that "auto objects" must be marked "aliased" explicitly
if 'Access (or 'Unchecked_Access) is desired. That's true in general.

(Also, pointer types can be declared local to a procedure (or other
block), so that objects of the local pointer type cannot outlive
the block unless brute force is used explicitly.)