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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,86ec22e070e319c0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Chris Warwick" <chris.warwick@cdcgy.com>
Subject: Re: How do I get this to work??
Date: 1999/01/06
Message-ID: <770ifd$qui$1@goblin.uunet.ca>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 429540681
References: <76s0dp$1v4$1@nntp3.uunet.ca> <76tbvv$ba5$1@nntp3.uunet.ca>
 <uiuelbj6r.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: UUNET Canada News Transport
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-01-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Stephen Leake wrote in message ...

>Why does Close_Port need a pointer to a Session? If you are passing
>Session to C code, you should probably use 'Address rather than
>'access. Or, define Close_Port to take an access parameter:


I am indeed passing this to some C code, and I realize that what I am doing
is cheating, just a little. The reason is I can't seem to get the stuff to
the C function by value, if I pass it by reference its happy, but it barfs
when I try to do it by value.

My old trick of translating pointers into Ada types by creating a function
to return the record by value also doesn't work...

>function Close_Port (Session : access Session_Type);
>
>If you really, really need the interface you've given,
>'unchecked_access will eliminate the error message.


Thanks, it does indeed eliminate the error, but it leaves me with a bad
taste. Somewhat like resorting to an unchecked_conversion.

Is there a "proper" way to do this, or am I stuck with the unchecked
solution?