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: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions
 and Extended-Returns.
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 06:34:28 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyehdor5i3.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com>
 <f91ac67c-02c9-43fd-982c-a58567aa9a1b@googlegroups.com>
 <lya9opdwaz.fsf@pushface.org>
 <03e84773-d616-4a46-8189-93ae4ab5fcbf@googlegroups.com>
 <klsjjd$qvv$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <e7ef987b-3fdb-4b59-bfd5-918006cf1ce2@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="32bbea2852c3ac5f339194c0aa5925ed";
 logging-data="3817"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QXfOfJA0/s5l4XNa5Mx4PmCkCyRliG3M="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:thGC6h4Nhg39e0eCKdFKfv9ZiKw=
 sha1:+FV1L0nwfacWbhC/eIq4L6cO4fA=
X-Original-Bytes: 2017
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181371
Date: 2013-05-03T06:34:28+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:

> I still think that anonymous access types should only be used when
> necessary, since there are special accessibility level rules for
> anonymous access types that have some surprising consequences.  There
> may be cases where it's beneficial to take advantage of those special
> rules.  But one should not use anonymous access types just because
> "hey, Ada lets us do it now and I can just throw in a pointer without
> having to think up a type name, like C programmers get to do!".  A
> good rule might be "don't use anonymous access types unless you've
> read 3.10.2 and understand it thoroughly."  (OK, that was a joke.)

This sounds like wise advice, that should go into a style guide.