Re: Generic access type convention and aliasing

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:op.wwneq7xtule2fv@cardamome...
>I also wished I could specify it must be a limited access type. Out of 
>curiosity, I searched the web on this topic, and found this was already 
>proposed. See this AI:
>
>http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ai05s/ai05-0142-2.txt?rev=1.3
>
>The status is "Work item".

No, it's "No Action". This was a discarded alternative to what eventually 
was implemented with explicitly aliased parameters and generalized 
references. We eventually realized that access discriminants already had the 
correct semantics so we didn't need a new feature for that.

So I wouldn't wait for any implementation of this proposal. :-)

                                     Randy.