From: "Mark Lundquist" <up.yerz@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: Limited Type Access - Again
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:44:20 GMT
Date: 2001-10-30T16:44:20+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ENAD7.958$Fm5.570252@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mailman.1004389122.4372.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Hi Anh,
<ANH_VO@udlp.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1004389122.4372.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> Thanks all for your response, specially Mark and Matt.
>
> Here comes the next question
>
> type Object is
> record
> Sem : Binary_Access;
> end record;
>
> Obj_1 : Object;
> Obj_2 : Object;
>
> if Obj_1 /= Obj_2 then
> Obj_1 := Obj;
> end if;
>
> This is equivalent to
>
> if Obj_1.Sem /= Obj_1.Sem then
> Obj_1.Sem := Obj_2.Sem;
> end if;
>
> It looks to me that equality and assignment do not make sense at all.
Well, they've always made sense before... :-)
It sounds like you're thinking that while the two examples above are
equivalent, the first one is legal while the second is not. But the second
example is perfectly legal -- Binary_Access (from the example in your
earlier post) is just an access type, which is non-limited, so there's
nothing wrong with the second example.
???
-- mark
prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-30 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-29 18:51 Limited Type Access - Again ANH_VO
2001-10-29 21:25 ` Matthew Heaney
2001-10-30 16:44 ` Mark Lundquist [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox