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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4d88fd7702b42427
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-21 11:38:05 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!noc.near.net!inmet!henning!stt
From: stt@henning.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Access to subprograms
Message-ID: <D5sp2v.Fvp@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <FRED.95Mar20101937@play.uno>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 14:47:18 GMT
Date: 1995-03-21T14:47:18+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Fred Hosch (fred@play.uno) wrote:

: From my casual and uninformed reading of the RM, it 
: seems that something like "+"'Access is legal, even,
: heaven forbid, for a predefined instance of "+".

No, 'Access is not permitted for subprograms with an "intrinsic"
calling convention, which includes all implicitly declared subprograms,
which includes all predefined operators. 

(To be honest ;-), implicitly declared dispatching operations 
*do* allow 'Access, since these need to exist as separately 
callable subprograms anyway to support dispatching -- and
this includes the predefined "=" on tagged types.)

: Can anyone provide a pointer?

See RM95 3.10.2(32), 6.3.1(4-11).

: Fred Hosch					fred@cs.uno.edu
: Computer Science Department			(504)-286-6594
: University of New Orleans			(504)-286-7228 (fax)
: New Orleans, LA	 70148

-Tucker Taft  stt@inmet.com
Intermetrics, Inc.