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: 103376,86ec22e070e319c0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: How do I get this to work??
Date: 1999/01/09
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901091233230.7550-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 430650048
References: <76s0dp$1v4$1@nntp3.uunet.ca> <76tbvv$ba5$1@nntp3.uunet.ca>
 <uiuelbj6r.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <770ifd$qui$1@goblin.uunet.ca>
 <771bl9$sla$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <BrBl2.6251$Kg6.44094@news2.telusplanet.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 915914989 19104 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-01-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Chris Warwick wrote:
> In article <771bl9$sla$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> >You can't have it both ways, If you insist on structuring
> >your program in a manner that leaves it open to the
> >possibilities of dangling pointers, then you have to use
> >Unchecked_Access. 
> 
> I guess this where I get confused. If I want to pass a pointer amoungst these 
> functions/procedures I have to define the type at the package level. As a 
> result there is no way for someone to define an instance of the pointer at a 
> lower level, i.e., as a local variable within a procedure. Another way to get 

I'm jumping into the middle of this, so I don't have the context, but one
trick I use to define access types at a lower level is to define the
access types in a generic package and instantiate them in the scope that
I need them. This trick is especially useful with access to subprogram
types, which don't permit an Unchecked_Access.

> I've got it working... My uneasyness stems from the fact that when I ran into 
> unchecked_conversion I was able to get someone to explain to me how it really 
> was "supposed" to work, and once I understood, I agreed. Thus far I still do 
> not understand how a package can export a "useful" pointer definition...

By making the package (a parameterless, if necessary) generic, and
instantiating it where you need it?

-- Brian