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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00,
	HK_RANDOM_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ec21c3c7cdc7ff3e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc06.POSTED!20ae255c!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq>
Subject: Re: private types
References: <1142279908.327131.230200@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
 <hZrRf.3235$x94.1497@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <sa4k6axpj1y.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au>
 <f_qSf.8758$Jz4.2940@trnddc08> <wccwtetciq0.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <cRHSf.1991$TK2.563@trnddc07> <wccveubap2q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <VlVSf.325$Vx4.143@trnddc06> <wccr74q19up.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <AZkVf.1846$b07.929@trnddc05> <wccbqvu58b6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1FqVf.641025$084.20945@attbi_s22>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux)
Message-ID: <rEyVf.1936$Od7.1349@trnddc06>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:43:19 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.44.77.228
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: trnddc06 1143387799 129.44.77.228 (Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:43:19 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:43:19 EST
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3628
Date: 2006-03-26T15:43:19+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2006-03-26, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> wrote:
>
> I think we're missing the point. Access types are NOT scalar types
> in Ada. C pointers may be, since you can treat them pretty much like
> integers. 

I believe you're right.  I had the idea that access types are scalars
from page 18 of Michael Feldman's book "Software Construction and Data
Structures with Ada 95," but apparently he's wrong about that.

> Access types aren't special compared to scalar types because they're
> not scalar types; they're not even conceptually similar.

Exactly, so it's reasonable to treat access types differently when it
comes to default initialization, despite Robert Duffs comment that the
arguments for/against apply to both kinds of types.  After reading
Duff's last post, I can see that he was talking outside of the
language, so that's where the misunderstanding was.  My position had a
premise that we're dealing with Ada integers as they are (that is,
non-abstract, and without a null value).

-- 
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.