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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.224.59.205 with SMTP id m13mr12007226qah.7.1367512631460;
 Thu, 02 May 2013 09:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.129.47 with SMTP id nt15mr124019obb.13.1367512631406;
 Thu, 02 May 2013 09:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l3no395576qak.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni0qax.0!nntp.google.com!m7no400986qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 09:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <klsj0t$qn5$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com>
 <f91ac67c-02c9-43fd-982c-a58567aa9a1b@googlegroups.com>
 <klsj0t$qn5$1@munin.nbi.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <52510125-a4b9-4e9b-ba03-fa2d367743ae@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions
 and Extended-Returns.
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 16:37:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Original-Bytes: 2224
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181360
Date: 2013-05-02T09:37:11-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 7:28:38 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> >The language here may be a bit sloppy, since for an anonymous access
> >type, I'm not sure there's any such thing as "the declaration of
> >... [a] given access type".
> 
> Wow, I think we've missed this Adam for a while! I'm pretty sure there is 
> wording somewhere that says that where an anonymous access type is declared, 

Well, 3.1(5) says "A declaration is a language construct that associates a name with (a view of) an entity".  But for an anonymous access type, there's no name.  
So based on that, there's no declaration.  (If there were some other language that indicated what the "declaration" of an anonymous access type is, I'd expect to find it in 3.10, but I don't see it there.)

I think this just bolsters my view that 9.3(2), which was pretty much written when there were no anonymous access types, needs updating.

                             -- Adam