Re: array of operations

From: "David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
Subject: Re: array of operations
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:37:42 -0500
Date: 2002-09-12T11:37:42-05:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.1031848682.5632.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3d80bd8d.30112108@news.demon.co.uk

Note the word "or". As far as I can see, _you_ are mistaken.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John McCabe" <john.nospam@nospamassen.nospamdemon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: array of operations

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:32:10 GMT, Mark Biggar
> <mark.a.biggar@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Ehud Lamm wrote:
> >>>Not true. Since it is always OK to take 'Unchecked_Access of a
parameter
> >>>of a tagged type in Ada 95, you generally do not need to explicitly use
> >>>"aliased". Claw uses this extensively to provide an interface which is
> >>>mostly without access types, yet internally everything is linked
> >>>together. (Claw uses finalization to prevent dangling pointers in this
> >>>case).
> >
> >> Sure. You can rephrase what I wrote, "You usually need to decalre
aliased
> >> objects, or use 'Unchecked_Access." :-)
> >
> >um, tagged objects are by definition aliased, see ARM 3.10(9).  No need
> >for an explisit declaration.
>
> Do you mean this bit:
>
> "and a formal parameter or generic formal object of a tagged type are
> defined to be aliased"?
>
> Note the word "generic". As far as I can see, you are mistaken.
>
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
>