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,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,86ec22e070e319c0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: warwicks@telusplanet.net (Chris Warwick) Subject: Re: How do I get this to work?? Date: 1999/01/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 430445047 References: <76s0dp$1v4$1@nntp3.uunet.ca> <76tbvv$ba5$1@nntp3.uunet.ca> <770ifd$qui$1@goblin.uunet.ca> <771bl9$sla$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Trace: news2.telusplanet.net 915858273 161.184.49.248 (Fri, 08 Jan 1999 22:04:33 MDT) Organization: gerf inc. NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 22:04:33 MDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <771bl9$sla$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote: >You can't have it both ways, If you insist on structuring >your program in a manner that leaves it open to the >possibilities of dangling pointers, then you have to use >Unchecked_Access. I guess this where I get confused. If I want to pass a pointer amoungst these functions/procedures I have to define the type at the package level. As a result there is no way for someone to define an instance of the pointer at a lower level, i.e., as a local variable within a procedure. Another way to get this to function would be to define as instance of the pointer as a global variable for the package, but then I have to mutex it to prevent different tasks from getting messed up (which seems unnecessarily awkward). I think I understand the rules, but I am confused as to how this "should" work. >Proper restructuring can often, but not >always, remove the need for this. Note that >Unchecked_Access is of course no more dangerous from the >point of view of accessibility violations than 'Address. >Does 'Address make you equally uneasy? If not you are being >over concerned at names, when functionality is more >significant! I've got it working... My uneasyness stems from the fact that when I ran into unchecked_conversion I was able to get someone to explain to me how it really was "supposed" to work, and once I understood, I agreed. Thus far I still do not understand how a package can export a "useful" pointer definition...