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: email@domain.com (Dale Stanbrough)
Subject: Re: Program error from assignment??
Date: 1998/07/23
Message-ID: <email-2307980749100001@dale.ppp.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 375255764
References: <6p3070$bvn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6p4skk$j73$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cs.rmit.edu.au
X-Trace: emu.cs.rmit.edu.au 901144086 10727 131.170.27.23 (22 Jul 1998
 21:48:06 GMT)
Organization: RMIT
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Jul 1998 21:48:06 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-22T21:48:06+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."



...and don't forget that there is nothing stating that the main procedure
will outlive other parts of the system (e.g. other tasks could continue
to run).

If you don't want the check made, try using pragma suppress.


Dale