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: 103376,9640b17421044f1a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: accesibility level problem Date: 1999/02/22 Message-ID: <7aqd0i$tt5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 446893741 References: <36CD206A.32D96489@systems.at> <36CDE45C.5B5E04D8@lmco.com> <36D06C0F.32CA8C6B@umundum.vol.at> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x7.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 166.72.70.196 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 22 01:48:04 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-02-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <36D06C0F.32CA8C6B@umundum.vol.at>, Thomas Handler wrote: > This explanation makes accessibility rules even more > clear for me. The key point with accessibility rules is to remember that they are designed to statically make dangling pointers impossible, making worst case assumptions. If you have a clear idea of the underlying stack implementation, then this goal should be sufficient to understand the motivation behind the accessibility rules (they are a little similar to the "scope" rules in Algol-68 which had the same goal). -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own