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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e92d558e5b77fce2
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.189.72 with SMTP id gg8mr12473519pbc.4.1328574563628;
        Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni268586pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Simon Belmont <sbelmont700@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Building limited types through nested creator functions
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:27:43 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <f7678d6e-6746-485f-a148-4f0821ffe9ed@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <40048c5a-ecf5-43e6-8c76-a294d0c333d1@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
 <45c75d2a-02b4-40b2-b69b-04c6bf7a47a5@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.218.138.255
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1328574563 28263 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2012 00:29:23
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:29:23 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.218.138.255;
 posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-02-06T16:27:43-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 6, 7:03=A0pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:

> (2) If you want users of the package to create an Inner, and then
> create an Outer that *refers* to that same Inner (without making a
> copy), then you shouldn't object to using access types (in the private
> part).

It is basically this, and I really have no objection in using the
access type.  But since Ada can do it for a public type, I was just
interested if there was some sort of official way for a private type
(which would avoid the necessary evils of lifetime control,
accessibility, etc.)

Thank you again

-sb