Re: Formal Subprogram Access

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"AdaMagica" <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de> wrote in message 
news:dfb02e95-8bcd-4226-84d5-39bd20243421@googlegroups.com...
> RM 6.3.1(9)   Attribute subprograms have convention Intrinsic.
> RM 8.5.4(5/3) Intrinsic subprograms must not be renamed.
> RM 12.6(9)    In an instance, a formal_subprogram_declaration declares a 
> view of
>              the actual. The profile of this view takes its ... calling
>              convention from the original profile of the actual entity.
>
> It seems that attribute subprograms are allowed as actuals.
>
> So again: Is 'Access and renaming of a formal subprogam allowed? It might 
> be an attribute.

RM 12.3(11): Legality Rules are not enforced in the body of an instance. 
Ergo, the actual subprogram is irrelevant as to whether 'Access is allowed 
in a generic body.

There is a special rule for that case in 3.10.2(38/3), and that rule 
explicitly allows 'Access to be passed as an anonymous access type. Nothing 
in 6.3.1 or anywhere else says that a generic formal subprogram has 
convention intrinsic. So I conclude this is legal -- in a generic body.

The rules about the instance only apply in a generic specification, so if 
the 'Access is given in the specification, then the 'Access might later be 
illegal.

In either of these cases, renaming it (as a spec) does not change any of 
these properties. (A renames-as-body is more like a call, so it could change 
these properties, as a wrapper is required in any case.)

But a better solution in general is to avoid 'Access altogether -- then you 
don't need a panel of experts to argue about whether it is legal or not. ;-)

                                            Randy.