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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,34d47d048b177d0b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: limited/non-limited in Ada95 Date: 1997/10/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 281154186 References: <3442C2A3.3781@bix.com> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-10-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3442C2A3.3781@bix.com>, TMoran@bix.com wrote: >In Ada 83 there was always an argument against using 'limited' because >it would make anything anything using that type also limited. But in >Ada 95 with tagged types we have the same problem in reverse: if a >tagged type is non-limited then all its descendants are non-limited and >some important capabilities are only available to limited types. What "important capabilities" do limited types have? That they're passed by reference? You get that for free anyway for tagged types, even if the tagged type is non-limited. >Has >anyone else found this to be a problem, and do you have any good >solutions? Sometimes it's a pain if you have a non-limited tagged type and you want to extend it to add an access discriminant. But no big deal: you can use a named access type as the discriminant and O'Unchecked_Access to give it a value. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271