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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c08a7609345f4e5
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Limited use for limited with?
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <c2a9a958-23ad-4cc2-b2f1-3dc37e1f9a13@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <853314bc-0f79-435f-86a5-d7bcdd610731@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <f7b952cc-bc96-4e4c-ae72-ba08ca1e3445@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <82y6ajg07m.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <eb67bb81-aea2-4044-a6e5-7e03eb72b118@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
 <82ocb6ushq.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <op.vj7xjle3z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1286565221 21115 127.0.0.1 (8 Oct 2010 19:13:41
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:13:41 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR
 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14447
Date: 2010-10-07T14:30:29-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 7, 11:27=A0am, "Martin Krischik" <krisc...@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> Am 07.10.2010, 13:55 Uhr, schrieb Stephen Leake =A0
> <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org>:
>
> > Exactly. Suppose we have the following:
>
> > type My_Type is record ... end record;
> > type My_Access_Type is access all My_Type;
>
> > procedure Foo_One (A : access My_Type);
>
> > procedure Foo_Two (A : My_Access_Type);
>
> > Inside Foo_Two, we know that the accessibility level of A is the same a=
s
> > the declaration of My_Access_Type,
>
> Are you realy sure about that? My_Access_Type is an access *all* and coul=
d =A0
> point to an aliased value on the stack.

Only if you use 'Unchecked_Access (or some other trickery).  Since
we're talking about accessibility level checks, we have to assume that
we aren't using 'Unchecked_Access, which would defeat the whole
purpose of the checks and make the discussion pointless.

                             -- Adam