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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9ce5fb49dc74582f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news2.volia.net!news.germany.com!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: generic question
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <1163959439.299036.129940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
 <87mz6nnt4v.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <20061119202320.19149a2f@cube.tz.axivion.com> <4560D5BE.5060508@obry.net>
 <1164059458.442430.110710@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <4562a51a$0$27404$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <u3b8cricj.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <45633396.10704@obry.net> <slrnem6dkc.3tk.lutz@belenus.iks-jena.de>
 <dZSdnXEjXp9jfvnYnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@megapath.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:32:55 +0100
Message-ID: <okqggs99v1j5$.p2upxltb2tgs$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Nov 2006 09:32:51 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: c0f0655b.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=]m?7ZI`NU`h9kIfcjg:0fdA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRaFl8W>\BH3YbRjYUQ23?7:oDNcfSJ;bb[eFCTGGVUmh?dN\HXHJ4e80nXkIO]^gC23`
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7659
Date: 2006-11-23T09:32:51+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:58:24 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> Well, that's one use. There are three others, IMHO:
> 
> * To stand in for the lack of "in out" parameters on functions;
> * To avoid unnecessary type conversions between
> access-to-declared-in-limited-with;
> * To stand in for the lack of subprogram types (anonymous
> access-to-subprogram parameters).
> 
> That's it. All other uses (especially controlling access parameters) are
> junk and should be avoided.

Absolutely
 
[...]

> And, yes, I was against the expansion of the uses of anonymous
> access types in Ada 2007. I lost that discussion primarily because I didn't
> have a reasonable alternative for the second bullet above.

Was it so important to compensate for all disadvantages access types bring
with?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de