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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4b758210c0900d03
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Protected object which never get finalized
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:08:18 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <b1fdd8e7-570f-42f7-b614-c25392eb8e01@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
References: <op.u71i2edlvwnd5a@garhos>
 <nospam-53FA2E.07354714022010@news.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.30.110.254
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1266257298 30548 127.0.0.1 (15 Feb 2010 18:08:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:08:18 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.30.110.254;
	posting-account=_RXWmAoAAADQS3ojtLFDmTNJCT0N2R4U
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_2; en-us)
	AppleWebKit/531.21.8 (KHTML,
 like Gecko) Version/4.0.4 Safari/531.21.10,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9242
Date: 2010-02-15T10:08:18-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 14, 12:35=A0pm, "John B. Matthews" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> I get the same result with gcc 4.3.4, but it works if protected type
> A_Type is public in P:
>
> =A0 =A0package P is
> =A0 =A0 =A0 protected type A_Type is
> =A0 =A0 =A0 private
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Spy : Spies.Instance_Type
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (Client_Name =3D> new String'("P.A_Type"));
> =A0 =A0 =A0 end;
> =A0 =A0end P;
>
> Type A_Type has its own private part, and this seems more comparable to
> the declaration of protected type B_Type. Is there any reason to make
> A_Type more opaque?

I had wanted to write

    private
       Name : aliased constant String :=3D "P.A_Type";
       protected type A_Type is
          private
             Spy : Spies.Instance_Type
               (Client_Name =3D> Name'Access);
       end;
    end P;

to avoid allocating a new Client_Name at each instance creation. This
looks a little messy if in the public part.