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=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.107.9.80 with SMTP id j77mr3052419ioi.138.1522598096308;
        Sun, 01 Apr 2018 08:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:e5b:: with SMTP id n27-v6mr343681otd.2.1522598096148;
 Sun, 01 Apr 2018 08:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!maths.tcd.ie!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!ottix-news.ottix.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!u184-v6no3137412ita.0!news-out.google.com!u64-v6ni4129itb.0!nntp.google.com!u184-v6no3137407ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <12766e64-7641-45a0-8e76-8330a3b3c101@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=85.245.160.83;
 posting-account=rhqvKAoAAABpikMmPHJSZh4400BboHwT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.245.160.83
References: <e1e73838-2e45-4f53-9cbf-e28e85100fd1@googlegroups.com>
 <p9qn3h$1fts$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <29943b13-00d1-443a-82f2-f55272770109@googlegroups.com>
 <12766e64-7641-45a0-8e76-8330a3b3c101@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a8c67c46-f225-4405-a749-d1c69800e29d@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: limited agregate and limited components default initialization
From: Jean-Claude Rostaing <00120260a@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 15:54:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51281
Date: 2018-04-01T08:54:55-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

My real problem is that the implicit dereference aspect NEEDS an access discriminant, and can't take a named access type.
... or anonymous access type shall be allowed to be GENERAL, which I surely don't advocate for.
If either of those two things were possible, I wouldn't have to use an allocator in my exemple.