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 10.224.163.14 with SMTP id y14mr25757323qax.3.1374473467610; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:11:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.40.167 with SMTP id y7mr1036684qek.36.1374473467594; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news.glorb.com!f1no369690qae.0!news-out.google.com!dk8ni1022qab.0!nntp.google.com!f1no369686qae.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:11:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=136.163.203.9; posting-account=l8k8IwoAAADeDydswOzwNzmn10qOk9gt NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.163.203.9 References: <87mwplvthn.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <9a48d84b-4160-4824-a658-48dfcf12d0d6@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Accessibility checks From: ake.ragnar.dahlgren@gmail.com Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:11:07 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182620 Date: 2013-07-21T23:11:07-07:00 List-Id: Den torsdagen den 18:e juli 2013 kl. 02:39:42 UTC+2 skrev Bill Findlay: > On 18/07/2013 00:44, in article ks7a8v$4nj$1@loke.gir.dk, "Randy Brukardt= " wrote: > "Jeffrey Carter" wrote in message > news:ks718g$aim$2@dont-email.me... >> Bruka= rdt, ARG member and editor of the ARM, claims that 'Access never >> works a= nd 'Unchecked_Access is always required, bypassing the >> accessibility che= cks. While this is not entirely true, it's quite common >> that one must us= e 'Unchecked_Access, so we could do without these rules >> and checks in th= e majority of cases. > > That's not entirely true: I did find one (and only= one) instance where I was > able to use 'Access in my code (it had to do w= ith a library-level > initialization). Interesting. My projects have 37 occ= urrences of 'Access and only 2 of 'Unchecked_Access. -- Bill Findlay with b= lueyonder.co.uk; use surname & forename; Perhaps your projects use anonymous access types? Best regards, =C5ke Ragnar Dahlgren