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: 1998/07/23
Message-ID: <dewar.901174695@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 374095888
References: <6p3070$bvn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6p4skk$j73$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6p5c9p$9qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 901174744 10594 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

T.E.D. said

<<My code could, theoretically, pass the new access value for the object into a
task (which had also with'ed the package that declares the access type). Then
my main procedure where the object is declared could, theoretically, end. The
program will continue to hang around as long as the task doesn't end too.

The compiler vendor could have, theoretically, decided to pop the stack for
the main procedure even though the program isn't quite done yet. I would have
figured the more natural implementation is that the tasks (and their main
stacks) are declared on the main procedure's stack along with all its
variables, but it doesn't HAVE to be done that way.
>>


no, no. You needn't hypothesize such strange things. Just realize that
there is nothing special about the main program, it is just a procedure
that anyone could call from anywhere.