Re: two questions on allocators

[AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>]

Am Freitag, 23. Februar 2018 21:42:14 UTC+1 schrieb Mehdi Saada:
> type A is access INTEGER;
> type B is access not null A; 
> type C is access B;
> Object_C : C := new B;
> is allowed, but not
> type A is access INTEGER;
> type B is access A; 
> type C is access B;
> Object_C : C := new not null B; ?? What's the difference ?

As Shark8 has already said, new not null B is a syntax error.

> If the designated type of the allocator is class-wide, the accessibility level of the type determined by the subtype_indication or qualified_expression shall not be statically deeper than that of the type of the allocator.
> 
> -> what means the last "type of the allocator" ? Is it the same than "designed type of the allocator" ?
> Does it refer to this situation ? ->
> type T is access some_tagged_type'Class;
> POINTER : T;
> declare
>    type CHILD is new some_tagged_type with ...
> begin
>    POINTER := new CHILD; --illegal
> end;

The access object is POINTER, its type is T, the designated (not designed) type is some_tagged_type'Class, the type determined by the subtype_indication is Child, as you have declared.