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 <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Subverting 'Access for Sub-programs
Date: 1999/08/05
Message-ID: <7ocrqq$sme$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 509292029
References: <37A71EF1.2201@dera.gov.uk> <37A7FDE8.4F5@dera.gov.uk>
 <7o9vrv$qgt$1@wanadoo.fr> <wccoggm9w94.fsf@world.std.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x41.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: Thu Aug 05 20:23:04 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-08-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <wccoggm9w94.fsf@world.std.com>,
  Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:
> There is nothing "risky" about the "limited
> access-to-subprogram" feature proposed in an LSN by the design
> team.  It is equally as safe as
> the generic solution.


Yes, and also very restrictive. Many of the cases in which I
have used Unrestricted_Access would not be handled by the
limited access-to-subprogram capability in any case.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.