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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8522260ffbf09d84 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-05 10:57:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Amado Alves Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Problem With Self-Referential Access-to-Subprogram Type Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:55:16 +0000 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <80teqv099lspc5d4osf2gmu7cld46i0lvb@4ax.com> <20chqvglnrae8njr0011cfg3a8hc82je7m@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1068058552 52102 80.67.180.195 (5 Nov 2003 18:55:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:55:52 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2003 18:55:14.0840 (UTC) FILETIME=[59020180:01C3A3CE] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2099 Date: 2003-11-05T18:55:16+00:00 On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 17:49, Adam Beneschan wrote: > ... The feeling at the time was that > the additional work needed to change the language and the compilers > shouldn't be required if no one has run into the problem in practice. > I've let them know that someone now has run into it. Did you verify that the problem was "real"? The example does not seem to show enough. Can be just an experimentation of the general construction, with no specific application in mind. Some newbies do that. (In which case the 2002 decision should probably stand. Private types solve the general problem.)