Re: [Q] non-limited record and "self-pointer"

[Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>]

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org> wrote:
: I'm not clear what you are asking. 

I'm puzzled too by the compiler's silence, because AFAIK a record cannot
silently become limited?
 
: The prefix of 'Access or 'Unchecked_Access must be aliased. ARM 3.10
: (9) says the current instance of a limited type is aliased. Sor for
: 'Unchecked_Access to be legal, Read_Only_Set must be limited.

Introducing a limited ad hoc type and including a component
of this type in the record will indeed make the compiler say "must
be limited".

: Apparently the compiler thinks including teh Container component makes
: Read_Only_Set limited.

Hmmm. In order to check this I have tried assignment, it is there,
according to the compiler, as in

with some_sets;  use some_sets;   -- is new Sets(Integer, ...)
procedure ad_hoc is

   the_set: Read_Only_Set;
   another_set: Read_Only_Set;
begin
   another_set := the_set;
end ad_hoc;


: But in the version of Charles I have,
: Charles.Sets.Sorted.Unbounded.Container_Type is not limited. So that's
: a puzzle. What does your version of Charles say?

20030813 mostly. The only trace of a limited type I could find is
a Key_Type formal in nested generic packages in red_black_trees
and in the used sets package.



thanks,
georg