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,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram
Date: 1996/07/03
Message-ID: <DtytvM.Mw2@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 163465891
references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> <Dtxu2p.97F@world.std.com>
 <4rd5lu$q4@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <4rd5lu$q4@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
Fergus Henderson <fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
>What was the safe way that you proposed?

There were two variations, actually.

1. Limited access types.  You would say:

    type T is limited access procedure(...);

T would be limited, meaning no assignment.  Without assignment, you
can't create dangling pointers to procedures.  You could pass values of
type T into subprograms, but all the subprogram could do is call through
that value, or pass it on -- not copy it into a global variable.

2. Access-to-subprogram parameters.  You would say:

    procedure Foo(X: Integer; Y: access procedure(B: Boolean));

This syntax is reminiscent of Pascal's.  There would be a run-time
accessibility check on various operations on Y, just like the access
parameters that DO exist in the language (e.g. "Y: access Integer").
This would allow you to pass procedures around, and call them, as in
option (1).  You could also copy them to *local* variables (that is,
inside Foo, you could say "Local := Local_Access_Type(Y)), but any
attempt to copy to a global variable would require some sort of
type_conversion or whatever that would fail the run-time check.

I preferred option (1) at the time.

Now, GNAT has gone and provided the same capability, using an
implementation-defined attribute (Unrestricted_Access), but
unfortunately, this attribute allows dangling pointers to subprograms,
unlike either of the above options.

- Bob