Re: Limited use for limited with?

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Stephen Leake wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
>> I generally think twice or three times before declaring an access type
>> in the same package as the object type. In fact, I think twice before
>> declaring any access type at all :) To me, an access type makes the
>> package unclean.
>>
>> Since, in Ada, all objects of tagged types are passed by reference and
>> since Ada has class-wide types, you do not need any access type to
>> achieve pass-by-reference semantics or dynamic dispatching. This
>> leaves dynamic memory allocation as the only remaining justification
>> for access types.
>
> You left out accessibility checks, which are an important reason for
> named access types.

Yes, that's why I generally prefer named access types over anonymous
access types, but you don't use access values just because of
accessibility checks, do you?

--
Ludovic Brenta.