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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,856114749978634c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Protected Types and Address Clauses Date: 1996/02/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140391850 references: <4fqe6h$t0e@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <4gcppr$10f5@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-02-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "BG> protected Discretes is BG> procedure Write(Settings : in SETTING_LIST); BG> private BG> HW_Control : DISCRETE_HW_CONTROL; BG> for HW_Control use at 16#4000_0001#; BG> end Discretes; BG> BG> Our compiler complains about the address clause, claiming that BG> HW_Control is not visible. Looking at the language specification BG> I do see that address clauses are not included here. What is BG> the rationale for this omission?" It is obvious that this address clause should not be allowed, since it is plainly meaningless (address clauses cannot apply to components in a meaningful way). I don't think the RM permits it, but if it does, then the RM is plainly wrong. If you declare a single protected object, it is fine to have an address clause for the object, but not for its individual components.