Re: meaning of "current instance"

[tmoran@bix.com]

>So in your example above, it may be OK for Init to refer to component I,
>because that component has definitely been elaborated.  But you're
>really treading on thin ice here...
  Is it legal, or is it not?  The only mention of "current instance"
of a type that I see in the LRM index is to 8.6(17), which leaves me
guessing that the usual elaboration order rules apply, even though
things can be written that are normally un-writeable.
  If the order of components in a record declaration is changed, it
usually doesn't break things, or at least the compiler will point out
that you are using something before it exists.  A usage of "current
instance" presumably is a red flag to a maintenance programmer that
re-ordering is treading on thin ice.

>Type T probably needs to be limited.  (Did this even compile?)
 It compiled on two compilers, giving the results mentioned
previously.  Cohen's book only discusses limited T, but I don't see
anything in 8.6(17) that says limited, and these two compilers don't
require limited.

As I read LRM 8.6(17), T.I should be just as allowable as T'access,
but compilers don't seem to agree.  Where is this mentioned?

>You have to be careful about concurrency issues.
Not in a little "junk" program testing "current instance".  Stepper
was intended as a standin for anything with a side effect - random
numbers, IO, etc.  I hope anybody writing code that might be used
concurrently would use the appropriate protections, but I don't think
a little test program counts.