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: 103376,2d56530d3025e324
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Program error from assignment??
Date: 1998/07/22
Message-ID: <dewar.901140642@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 373970660
References: <6p3070$bvn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6p4skk$j73$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 901140682 32653 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

<<So now this turns into an "accessability level" question. The object that is
pointed to is declared in the declaration section of the main routine. It
exists the entire program. I don't understand the exact rules on accessability
levels, but in my book I should *never* fail an accessability check with this
object. The access type is declared in a package spec.
>>

This is an obvious violation of the accessibility rules, since the package
spec is at a higher accessibility level. You know that it is OK, but there
is no structural guarantee.