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!feeder.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Access parameters and accessibility
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:25:03 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <m6svs0$65g$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <m6n3kr$t51$1@speranza.aioe.org> <m6onu3$6or$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <m6q27d$l4s$1@speranza.aioe.org> <m6q6eo$sgu$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <slrnm92al9.nrc.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1418855104 6320 24.196.82.226 (17 Dec 2014 22:25:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:25:04 +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:24080
Date: 2014-12-17T16:25:03-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Natasha Kerensikova" <lithiumcat@instinctive.eu> wrote in message 
news:slrnm92al9.nrc.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu...
...
> Am I doing something danegerous here?
> Should I try to find another pattern to achieve the same effects?
>
> From what I understood, here accessibility is statically known to be
> fine, isn't it? Or is there a trap hidden in there?

I think it is *supposed* to be statically fine. Whether the actual rules 
have that effect is unclear. Most likely, implementers will follow the 
intent rather than the actual rules (but since there have been a number of 
cases to the contrary, I wouldn't assume that unconditionally -- always 
check). (And no, I'm not going to try to figure this out for you, I try to 
minimize trips into this area.)

As always with accessibility, whenever we look at it in detail, someone 
finds a problem where the rules aren't quite what we want. That's why it's 
known as the "Heart of Darkness".

                                             Randy.