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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2308afbbe4ecec0b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Subverting 'Access for Sub-programs Date: 1999/08/04 Message-ID: <7o9vo9$ot3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 508847922 References: <37A71EF1.2201@dera.gov.uk> <7o8a11$ihv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Aug 04 18:11:31 1999 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-08-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Robert A Duff wrote: > Robert Dewar writes: > > > P.S. We have found Unrestricted_Access to be vital for > > implementing some of our run time and library packages (see > > for example the implementation of GNAT.Spitbol.Patterns in > > g-spipat.ads/adb files) > > Robert, > > Please explain why generic formal subprograms are not sufficient for > this purpose. During the design, that was the main rationale for why we > don't need downward closures (which I didn't buy, by the way). I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about, the use of this attribute in the patterns implementation has very little to do with downward closures. If you think you could replace the usage there with formal subprograms, you are welcome to try (it would be nice because they nyou could use this package on the Rational compiler for example). But I can't explain to you why I can't do something that I don't even begin to see could be done :-) Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.