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-Thread: 103376,c08a7609345f4e5 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!87.79.20.105.MISMATCH!news.netcologne.de!ramfeed1.netcologne.de!news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Limited use for limited with? References: <853314bc-0f79-435f-86a5-d7bcdd610731@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <82y6ajg07m.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <82ocb6ushq.fsf@stephe-leake.org> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 08:29:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Martin Krischik" Organization: Martin Krischik, Softwareentwicklung Message-ID: User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.62 (MacIntel) NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.236.173.3 X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk DXC=Ajk?9 Am 07.10.2010, 23:30 Uhr, schrieb Adam Beneschan : > Since > we're talking about accessibility level checks, we have to assume that > we aren't using 'Unchecked_Access, I thought Stephen were talking static vs. dynamic checks. He was arguing that anonymous access would need an dynamic check unlike a named access. But then he used an access all in his example - which AFAIK might needs a dynamic check as well. I would argue that if you use an access all you can just as well use an anonymous access. And I feel that many Ada programmes these day type »access all« out of habit without thinking of the implications. Regards Martin -- Martin Krischik mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik