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: 103376,20df27b13b7ee81e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-19 20:54:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Steve Doiel" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <2d87db3f.0112180600.6129c36b@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Beginner: Unchecked Deallocation X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: <6aeU7.10744$NM4.3150153@rwcrnsc53> NNTP-Posting-Host: 15eU7-120590-NM4-3149224@rwcrnsc53 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1008824066 15eU7-120590-NM4-3149224@rwcrnsc53 (Thu, 20 Dec 2001 04:54:26 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 04:54:26 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 04:54:26 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18132 Date: 2001-12-20T04:54:26+00:00 List-Id: If you move: procedure Free( LS: in out List_Acs ) is new Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation( Liste, List_Acs ); To the package spec all is well. SteveD "Antoine Lec." wrote in message news:d442bc8e.0112181417.32159165@posting.google.com... > > Procedure free declared in the spec is parameterless. The procedure > > free instantiated in the body takes an in out parameter of type > > liste_acs! > > > There is another problem when I change the definitions with this one : > > lcm.ads: > procedure Free (LS: in out Liste_Acs); > > lcm.adb > procedure Free (LS: in out Liste_Acs) is > new Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation (Liste, Liste_Acs); > > This results with: > > procedure Free (LS: in out Liste_Acs) is > | > >>> formal part not allowed in instantiation > > So what's the problem ? > > -- > b@v