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 10.224.54.73 with SMTP id p9mr11339771qag.1.1374092452425; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.50.199 with SMTP id e7mr117760obo.22.1374092452254; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news.glorb.com!t19no1858729qam.0!news-out.google.com!ij2ni424qab.0!nntp.google.com!t19no1999970qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:20:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mwplvthn.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=63.80.193.9; posting-account=nD_N8QoAAACgNfe5vMwm0rMAu4pgYumJ NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.80.193.9 References: <87mwplvthn.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <92e5cade-f0c6-49c8-ab48-e5e3463f0301@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Accessibility checks From: Alan Jump Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 20:20:52 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182554 Date: 2013-07-17T13:20:51-07:00 List-Id: Not all that complex, from where I sit. Here's a good, concise description: http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/gem-33/ In short, enforcing accessibility eliminates dangling pointers and their associated...umm...issues. - - 73 de N5ILN Alan On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:09:24 PM UTC-7, Florian Weimer wrote: > One thing in Ada I could never quite grasp where the accessiblity > > checks. I haven't seen much Ada code, and personally, I didn't have > > much need for nested access types anyway. If I have used them, they > > were still potentially unsafe due to aliasing or calls to > > Unchecked_Deallocation in neighboring code. > > > > So what's the point for this language feature? It seems to add quite > > a bit of complexity to the language.