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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!cme!leake
From: leake@cme.nbs.gov (Stephe Leake)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Collective response to := messages
Message-ID: <780@marvin.cme.nbs.gov>
Date: 7 Dec 88 17:33:34 GMT
References: <10963@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <3757@hubcap.UUCP>
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
In-reply-to: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu's message of 5 Dec 88 21:23:14 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <3757@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) writes:

      Sure, except for the circumvention of the provided ASSIGN routine which
      occurs every time the ADT is passed as an "in" or "out" parameter.

A limited type CANNOT be passed as an out parameter!!!!
A limited type CANNOT be passed as an out parameter!!!!
(in a user routine) LRM 7.4.4 (4). Have you got the message now? And
for an in parameter, the only access to the object is thru the ADT
functions, which work as desired.

Do you have an explicit example where a limited type violates the
abstraction in the way you are discussing? If so, maybe you have found
a compiler bug.

Stephe Leake 	(301) 975-3431 		leake@cme.nbs.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(formerly National Bureau of Standards)
Rm. B-124, Bldg. 220
Gaithersburg, MD  20899