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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c6acbb9f2027b8c9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.scarlet.biz!news.scarlet.biz.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:20:15 -0500
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: volatile vs aliased
References: <1128525722.605730.281980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	<87mzlnomca.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<1128537566.929419.121660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	<874q7voigp.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<1128542556.356635.96060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
	<87zmpnn2qy.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<1128543621.060346.217850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 07:21:36 +0200
Message-ID: <87r7azmd9b.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5zMLZUYT5u8xHqYUf9CaVye/BeQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.134.238.181
X-Trace: 
 sv3-GIdbBC7XpD+xaFD6sCku70NTKpEUUnJtl1rwKr7oDQrjEyJa34v7Iy78aYwj1bcOsqHmMnOla6oYtB9!qVk0/ls25hd4EhO5GeP9hYLzUJTLaCuxFEIDiru59sQbtxD2uEyIBGSQ43+LKQptXD8+B70sKJ4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.be
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.biz
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5433
Date: 2005-10-06T07:21:36+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"REH" <spamjunk@stny.rr.com> writes:

> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> I don't understand.  Do you mean to say that one Call_Procedure is not
>> sufficient?  That you'd have to have many such procedures?  Why?
> I've not sure if you are asking if I need several procedures per
> address (I do not) or why I have many address (I do).  Either way, your
> way is probably best:  just make one wrapper procedure for each
> address.  I was "creating" the procedure from the address at each call
> point.  Sigh.  Sometimes the simplest answer eludes me.

Even simpler: you need just one wrapper per parameter profile,
i.e. one wrapper for all parameterless procedures, etc.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.