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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions
 and Extended-Returns.
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 21:28:38 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <klsj0t$qn5$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com>
 <f91ac67c-02c9-43fd-982c-a58567aa9a1b@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1367461725 27365 69.95.181.76 (2 May 2013 02:28:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:15284
Date: 2013-05-01T21:28:38-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message 
news:f91ac67c-02c9-43fd-982c-a58567aa9a1b@googlegroups.com...
...
>"If the task is created by the evaluation of an allocator for a given
>access type, it depends on each master that includes the elaboration
>of the declaration of the ultimate ancestor of the given access type."
>
>The language here may be a bit sloppy, since for an anonymous access
>type, I'm not sure there's any such thing as "the declaration of
>... [a] given access type".

Wow, I think we've missed this Adam for a while! I'm pretty sure there is 
wording somewhere that says that where an anonymous access type is declared, 
but I'm not going to look it up right now. We spent way too much time 
rewriting this wording for Ada 2012, so I'm pretty sure it is consistent 
(now - the Ada 2005 wording was garbage).

...
>The moral: Whether or not you think anonymous access types are evil,
>anonymous access types to *tasks* definitely can have some surprising
>consequences (because of the task termination and dependency rules),
>and should be avoided.

You should extend this to anything that gets finalized, because you get the 
same sorts of issues with them. And since *everything* ought to be 
controlled (IMHO), ergo you have to avoid all anonymous access types. QED. 
:-)

                               Randy.