Re: Designated type of actual does not match that of formal "name"?

["chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com>]

> > If there isn't a way around this then the record type which holds an
item
> of
> > type xxx_access will have to be limited (and hold an item of type xxx
> > instead).  That might not be such a bad idea in this instance, but I'd
> like
> > to know how what exactly the error means anyway.
>
> The type is not required to be limited for Unchecked_Deallocation.

No, but the other possibility (if the error was not simple to fix, which
fortunately it is) was to simply use an item of type xxx instead of an item
of type access to xxx (which probably should have been the case in the first
place).  The language enforces that a record containing a limited type is
also 'limited' if i remember correctly, hence the need for some
modification.

In this instance it made sense to make the type limited since it's meant to
represent a file and assignment and equality don't apply in the sense that
they would to another type.  The type and it's associated subprograms have
been modified to make it limited.

Thanks for the info,
Chris