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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6d748e86b56b1269
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-28 04:14:10 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: wojtek@power.com.pl (Wojtek Narczynski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Prefix to 'ACCESS must either statically match... But why?
Date: 28 Jan 2003 04:14:09 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ad0dd8a.0301280414.6ac8d45e@posting.google.com>
References: <mailman.30.1043651980.4961.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <5ad0dd8a.0301270746.6ad4c4b0@posting.google.com>
 <PriZ9.6187$rq4.561874@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <5ad0dd8a.0301271851.7c907f60@posting.google.com>
 <lFmZ9.18308$zF6.1340596@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.160.20.107
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1043756050 29270 127.0.0.1 (28 Jan 2003 12:14:10
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jan 2003 12:14:10 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:33482
Date: 2003-01-28T12:14:10+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Why are you choosing to pass an access to a Stream_Element_Array
> instead of just the Stream_Element_Array? Avoiding the use of an
> access type would also eliminate the problem. Remember that any
> parameter, even an IN parameter can be passed by reference by the
> compiler. In fact, an array object is most frequently passed by 
> reference.

Because this function uses 'Unrestricted_Access to return an array of
accecceses to slices of the parameter array. This is supposed to yeld
in better speed and compactness, and let me avoid heap allocations. If
I were to copy the strings out of this huge array I'd have to allocate
them on heap.

>> And in general I find the inablility to declare access type
>> subtypes in parallel with the subtypes for the designated 
>> type obstructive.
> 
> It appears that you are thinking in C while programming in Ada.

Heh, maybe. Please take a look at my other post - even the compilers
are unsure if what I've written is Ada ;-)

Thanks,
Wojtek