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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5d4ade2fd8fd67c6
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Legit Warnings or not
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:36:25 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <j0ef88$op4$1@dont-email.me>
References: 
 <531193e0-3305-4292-9ed8-0176226c1d00@x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
	<j086nn$aau$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <j08sp2$8qi$2@dont-email.me>
	<j09rks$c5u$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <j0a5qa$lqg$2@dont-email.me>
	<j0d5cs$quf$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:36:25 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="/VXSMNOmpCM2gCR/yXAOew";
	logging-data="25380"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QokkrwWzWK8S7FfvoGORsMiyDoSHPZqI="
User-Agent: Pan/0.134 (Wait for Me; GIT cb32159 master)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Ig1me2GelLVgZRGCdrk4yky7n8=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20322
Date: 2011-07-23T12:36:25+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:42:00 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Brian Drummond" <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:j0a5qa$lqg$2@dont-email.me...
>> ..(b: would work) the record must contain an ACCESS to it (in which
>> case the implementation silently does something other than the
>> declaration says).
> 
> Adam answered this adequately. But I take it you have never passed a
> by-reference type as a parameter? 

I have, and I accepted it there ... so why did I have a blind spot 
against the same principle inside a record? I think, because of the 
simultaneous but quite separate discussion on representation clauses.

anyway, my thanks , and I think my misgivings have been completely 
answered.

- Brian