From: Mehdi Saada <00120260a@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: little precision about anonymous access types
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 01:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2018-05-16T01:14:33-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d294e4a5-864c-4ab0-bf60-6c9a94ace651@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pdfkk1$pfj$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
So if it was you, you would have treated subprograms with access types parameters as primitives, as long as they are declared in the same immediate scope ? It sounds simple, why hasn't it be do that way ?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-16 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-19 0:37 little precision about anonymous access types Mehdi Saada
2018-03-19 1:08 ` Mehdi Saada
2018-03-19 1:18 ` Mehdi Saada
2018-03-19 14:51 ` AdaMagica
2018-03-19 22:40 ` Randy Brukardt
2018-03-20 17:49 ` G. B.
2018-03-20 23:56 ` Mehdi Saada
2018-03-21 22:46 ` Randy Brukardt
2018-05-15 0:20 ` Mehdi Saada
2018-05-15 0:28 ` Mehdi Saada
2018-05-15 21:48 ` Randy Brukardt
2018-05-16 8:14 ` Mehdi Saada [this message]
2018-05-16 8:23 ` Mehdi Saada
2018-05-17 21:20 ` Randy Brukardt
2018-05-17 21:17 ` Randy Brukardt
2018-05-17 21:36 ` J-P. Rosen
2018-05-18 7:44 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2018-05-15 21:44 ` Randy Brukardt
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox