Re: Not null feature with anonymous and named access types

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:1xjx7454hmql7.14ype2u114tz2.dlg@40tude.net...
...
> * There is a language design problem that not-null is a subtype constraint
> rather than a type, so Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation cannot reject
> instantiation with a not-null pointer, as it probably should. But that is
a
> problem of generics, not of null-pointers. But this is another story.

This is doubly wrong: "not null" is *not* a constraint (it's something else
altogether). And it is required to match on generic instantiations (the
version of GNAT used is wrong here, not the language). Note that Ada
requires matching constraints in some cases for generics (remember
"statically matching subtypes"?) -- this has nothing to do with types.

                  Randy.