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: 103376,2308afbbe4ecec0b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Subverting 'Access for Sub-programs
Date: 1999/08/05
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908052214030.14625-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 509470833
References: <37A71EF1.2201@dera.gov.uk> <37A7FDE8.4F5@dera.gov.uk>
 <7o9vrv$qgt$1@wanadoo.fr> <wccoggm9w94.fsf@world.std.com>
 <7ocrqq$sme$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 933916756 201 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-08-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Robert Dewar wrote:
> In article <wccoggm9w94.fsf@world.std.com>,
>   Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:
> > There is nothing "risky" about the "limited
> > access-to-subprogram" feature proposed in an LSN by the design
> > team.  It is equally as safe as
> > the generic solution.
> 
> 
> Yes, and also very restrictive. Many of the cases in which I
> have used Unrestricted_Access would not be handled by the
> limited access-to-subprogram capability in any case.

Pointers to some illustrative examples? GNAT sources work. 

Do you think in the cases that you needed subprogram parameters that 
the majority of cases wouldn't be handled by the current feature set 
plus Bod Duff's limited acces to subprogram types? 

Its still useful, even if you need an unsafe feature, to be able to handle 
most cases safely.

-- Brian