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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,2308afbbe4ecec0b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Jean-Pierre Rosen" Subject: Re: Subverting 'Access for Sub-programs Date: 1999/08/04 Message-ID: <7o9vrv$qgt$1@wanadoo.fr>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 508866740 References: <37A71EF1.2201@dera.gov.uk> <37A7FDE8.4F5@dera.gov.uk> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.fr X-Trace: wanadoo.fr 933790399 27165 193.250.164.103 (4 Aug 1999 18:13:19 GMT) Organization: Adalog X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Aug 1999 18:13:19 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-08-04T18:13:19+00:00 List-Id: Anton Gibbs a �crit dans le message : 37A7FDE8.4F5@dera.gov.uk... > Dear Ada Community, > > Thank you, everyone, for all the very helpful responses to my question > on 'Access. > > Unfortunately, in my eagerness to provide a simplified statement of my > problem, I had omitted an important detail: in fact, the procedure which > I called Main is really not the main program and, more importantly, it > has a parameter which I need to access. > [snip] I understood from a previous message that you didn't like the solution with a generic taking a formal procedure. It seems however that it would allow you to do precisely what you want. You may not "like" generics, but they are inherently safer than access values. Actually, in the discussion about downward closures, it was noted that all the cases presented could be equally well be dealt with with generics, and therefore that it was not worth introducing a risky feature. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (Rosen.Adalog@wanadoo.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/adalog