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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.36.182.76 with SMTP id d12mr5089342itj.11.1518274552232;
        Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:55:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.94.15 with SMTP id d15mr249914oti.4.1518274552072; Sat,
 10 Feb 2018 06:55:52 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.swapon.de!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!o66no291325ita.0!news-out.google.com!s63ni688itb.0!nntp.google.com!w142no291384ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:55:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p5lne2$fe9$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2003:c7:83cd:cae7:44ee:d6d0:50b8:dd9b;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2003:c7:83cd:cae7:44ee:d6d0:50b8:dd9b
References: <p5l6bd$ete$1@dont-email.me> <p5lne2$fe9$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <91d27352-74f8-4c4c-b225-150cffe6c4fa@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Formal Subprogram Access
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:55:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50370
Date: 2018-02-10T06:55:51-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Am Samstag, 10. Februar 2018 04:03:32 UTC+1 schrieb Randy Brukardt:
> My 60 second opinion is that all three should be legal. But if that's wrong 
> for some subtle reason that I've forgotten, then surely the renames is 
> illegal too. (3.10.2(32/5) uses the term "denoted" to ensure that renames 
> are ignored for the purposes of enforcing the rule.) I'd definitely report a 
> bug to the vendor.

May be that the convention is Intrinsic, so no 'Access allowed. I however found no indication in the RM that generic parameter subprograms are Intrinsic.