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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9a7ca14e457ad414
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-14 20:07:29 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.bu.edu!inmet!spock!stt
From: stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Ada 9X question: accessibility
Message-ID: <CzA7v5.KIJ@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
References: <3a0hob$h5f@hopper.acm.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 23:57:04 GMT
Date: 1994-11-14T23:57:04+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3a0hob$h5f@hopper.acm.org>,
There can be only one <papay@ACM.ORG> wrote:
>I was reading over the Ada 9X Reference Manual section on Access Types and
>wanted to make sure I understood "accessibility" correctly.  
>I would appreciate any comments/confirmation on the following:

We have recently rewritten this part of the manual in terms
of "levels" to try to make it more "accessible" ;-).
It was certainly pretty inscrutable in version 5.0.

>procedure Example is
>
>   type Access_Integer_Type is access all Integer;
>   Ptr_1  : Access_Integer_Type;
>   Int_1  : aliased Integer;
>
>begin
>   Local_Block:
>   declare
>      Ptr_2  : Access_Integer_Type;
>      Int_2  : aliased Integer;
>   begin
>      Ptr_1 := Int_1'Access; -- Legal.
>      Ptr_1 := Int_2'Access; -- Illegal.
>      Ptr_2 := Int_1'Access; -- Legal?

Legal.

>      Ptr_2 := Int_2'Access; -- Illegal?

Illegal.  It makes no difference where Ptr_2 is declared,
what matters is where the access type is declared.

If you had declared another access type inside the declare
block, and declared Ptr_3 to be of that type, then

   Ptr_3 := Int_2'Access;

would be legal.

>   end Local_Block;
>end Example;
>
>As I understand it, the first assignment 
>statement is legal, but the second one
>is not because Int_2 is not dynamically accessible from the access type
>Access_Integer_Type (and it's pretty obvious this would leave a dangling
>reference).  What about the last two assignment statements?

As you guessed, it makes no difference where Ptr_2 is declared,
what matters is where its type is declared.  In the new terminology,
the accessibility level of Int_2 is statically deeper than
the accessibility level of Access_Integer_Type, so the 'Access
is illegal.

>Thanks in advance for your comments/help.
>
>   
>                             |         |
>David Papay                  |    o    | 
>papay@acm.org  (preferred)   |  ^/---  |
>dpapay@aol.com (alternate)   |  />     |
>                             |         |
>                             | fleche! |

S. Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com
Ada 9X Mapping/Revision Team
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138