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: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: How do I get this to work?? Date: 1999/01/07 Message-ID: <771bl9$sla$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 429628096 References: <76s0dp$1v4$1@nntp3.uunet.ca> <76tbvv$ba5$1@nntp3.uunet.ca> <770ifd$qui$1@goblin.uunet.ca> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x15.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 129.37.115.171 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 07 04:02:49 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-01-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <770ifd$qui$1@goblin.uunet.ca>, "Chris Warwick" wrote: > Is there a "proper" way to do this, or am I stuck with > the unchecked solution? You can't have it both ways, If you insist on structuring your program in a manner that leaves it open to the possibilities of dangling pointers, then you have to use Unchecked_Access. Proper restructuring can often, but not always, remove the need for this. Note that Unchecked_Access is of course no more dangerous from the point of view of accessibility violations than 'Address. Does 'Address make you equally uneasy? If not you are being over concerned at names, when functionality is more significant! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own