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,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f039470e8f537101
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-31 01:24:17 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ariane5 FAQ
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:28:45 +0200
Message-ID: <r2ihivk9iiejqvamh4euua48elb0oerllc@4ax.com>
References: <ud6fvzbzc.fsf@xsol.com>	 <3F248CEE.5050709@attbi.com>
 <3F25FB81.A81694FA@adaworks.com> <uispljeua.fsf@xsol.com>
 <3F27638A.888BAEC4@adaworks.com> <HvKVa.1136$7h6.473@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
 <3F27C236.F5234B9C@adaworks.com>
 <bg8gjo$m124l$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1059577616.650859@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bg8ni4$m0rvv$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1059583575.465653@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bg8tcp$m4o7j$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1059639839 20485661 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41061
Date: 2003-07-31T10:28:45+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:54:43 +0200, Vinzent Hoefler
<ada.rocks@jlfencey.com> wrote:

>Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
>>If so, how?
>
>... only statically. There is no dynamic dispatching, so there's no
>need for access types there.

You can have dynamic dispatching without access types.

If the target type is statically known, then static dispatch might
well occur on an access parameter.

>>If not, you can also avoid it in
>>C++ in the same way.
>
>Probably, yes.

Very difficult. C++ is unable to return unconstrained objects on the
stack.

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de