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!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:43:40 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net;
 news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID: <m460ih$m0n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <DA%7w.753721$Y4.288171@fx24.iad>
 <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com>
 <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad>
 <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com>
 <mqw8w.739469$w82.82975@fx21.iad>
 <cd91630f-d78d-4eab-830c-f71005e93fc0@googlegroups.com>
 <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com>
 <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com>
 <Jwy8w.500685$Ub6.487517@fx20.iad>
 <d4b8f45d-e327-4d78-a0d6-838aba063e4d@googlegroups.com>
 <lyoascltws.fsf@pushface.org> <YYE8w.620042$Lj7.284655@fx22.iad>
 <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <zTF8w.509165$No4.167804@fx19.iad>
 <fca06fd0-6970-46a5-95b9-6b6317a37f7c@googlegroups.com>
 <aSG8w.567817$Q61.266688@fx13.iad> <m40odq$tdv$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <19fa65d4-72c9-44ab-b44b-4ea0929c18f2@googlegroups.com>
 <m412nj$av5$1@loke.gir.dk> <m41pge$si1$1@dont-email.me>
 <m4395r$bo5$1@loke.gir.dk> <fo7cw4s3dd6g$.1jh55iopdn64m$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m45vef$3so$1@loke.gir.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:43:30 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="e1e8835fd7030ec2a5463beff662d0eb";
	logging-data="22551"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yBh68AkTwLUm/j0GU5xD4xeRmLWkUly4="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
In-Reply-To: <m45vef$3so$1@loke.gir.dk>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ugaqERfk7nCxZezj1r6BFBi7qxU=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23337
Date: 2014-11-14T15:43:40-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11/14/2014 03:24 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> I don't know why it is an access rather than just directly a type. Perhaps a 
> lack of imagination? But there's insufficient difference to justify the 
> change today.

IIRC, this was initially discussed for the purpose of passing a subprogram to a
C pointer-to-function, which suggested the access-to-subprogram type with all
the attendant accessibility problems.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I've got to stay here, but there's no reason
why you folks shouldn't go out into the lobby
until this thing blows over."
Horse Feathers
50