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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Protected object which never get finalized
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:23:19 -0500
Organization: The Wasteland
Message-ID: <nospam-2B414A.15231915022010@news.aioe.org>
References: <op.u71i2edlvwnd5a@garhos>
 <nospam-53FA2E.07354714022010@news.aioe.org> <op.u76nzoymvwnd5a@garhos>
NNTP-Posting-Host: LQJtZWzu+iKlBROuDg+IUg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9253
Date: 2010-02-15T15:23:19-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <op.u76nzoymvwnd5a@garhos>,
 Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Le Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:35:47 +0100, John B. Matthews  
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> a écrit:
> > Type A_Type has its own private part, and this seems more comparable to
> > the declaration of protected type B_Type. Is there any reason to make
> > A_Type more opaque?
> >
> Well, let say first I don't like the idea of designing with a 
> compiler bug  is mind, and secondly, this is not to be part of a 
> public part (I don't  really like private stuff in public part). When 
> I know a mostly clean workaround, that's Ok, but I do not like this  
> one.
> TBH, as was trying (as explained in the initial post), to workaround  
> another bug when I meet this one. The interesting point to me, is 
> that you get the same, so it is not just  my compiler. This means for 
> me I should report the bug to AdaCore (as you  seem to have confirmed 
> the bug).

I wish I could claim to understand it well enough to say one way or the 
other. Given the desired declaration,

    package P is 
       type A_Type is limited private; 
    private 
       protected type A_Type is 
       private 
          Spy : Spies.Instance_Type 
            (Client_Name => new String'("P.A_Type")); 
       end; 
    end P; 

is "protected type A_Type" a valid completion of "type A_Type is limited 
private;" or is that irrelevant?

> I thank you for the test you've made :)

You're welcome; thank you for an interesting example.

-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>