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 10.107.58.70 with SMTP id h67mr5305998ioa.38.1522703346581;
        Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:bc8:: with SMTP id 66-v6mr643798oth.10.1522703346342;
 Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.unit0.net!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!u184-v6no4391616ita.0!news-out.google.com!u64-v6ni5663itb.0!nntp.google.com!k65-v6no2597567ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 14:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <e76bfb2c-7137-4e86-b91d-bb914b3e2446@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: <b2039dba-c5b9-4bf1-a589-bf055c713621@googlegroups.com>
 <e76bfb2c-7137-4e86-b91d-bb914b3e2446@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ab5cde73-e1fa-412c-ae47-4d1f07adabe0@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: changing rules for anonymous access types to named ones
From: Jean-Claude Rostaing <00120260a@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 21:09:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1718
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3082624379
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51306
Date: 2018-04-02T14:09:06-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> general access type to solve the compilation error:
Yeah, but it's ugly and I won't write "access all" if if I'm not really gonna use a pointer on the stack...
I think it's a compiler issue, as like I said, I found no rules about access types, in the interface issue. Also, the interface are said to be pretty much equivalent to "type blablabla is abstract tagged null record"....