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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fba47412041a3607,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Differences with/without .all
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:34:55 +0100
Message-ID: <647ktoF2acjggU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: individual.net S58PllvD5j9Q+ClrvGdGTwXRu0ZnFS8QDGilU1RPDcVxXz5bk=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UBmDGlWFCUbN7yA0onA8ubYiZ4Y=
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20448
Date: 2008-03-17T17:34:55+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello people,

Gnat is giving me an error depending on if I use the .all abbreviation or not.
I had the (unresearched) idea that there should be no differences besides the
aesthetic one[*], so I'm not sure if gnat's wrong or I'm (guess what ;) )

One way or the other, I'd like to know the explanation. The particular case
that is giving me problems in GPL 2007 is:

protected type Safe;
type Safe_Access is access all Safe;
function S return Safe_Access;

S.Some_Procedure;
--  This fails with
--  Prefix of protected procedure or entry call must be variable

S.all.Some_Procedure;
--  This compiles and runs OK.

Your judgment?

Alex.

[*] Exception possibly being constructions of this kind:
S.all'Access
which may be not equivalent to the original access type ("S'Type")?