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: 103376,6e696296ba7c3482
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: parameters in bindings
Date: 1996/03/22
Message-ID: <dewar.827529457@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143783665
references: <DooE1w.MCH.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"This works but to me it seems ugly because extra access types are
introduced which are otherwise unnecessary."

That's odd, it's a bit like saying, I need some arrays, but I seem to have
to introduce some array types which are otherwise unnecessary.

Your argument is accurate, these extra access types are necessary. I
suggest introducing them in a child of Interfaces.C so that a standard
set is used.