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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,29fe9a340e0d180d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Jon S Anthony Subject: Re: Depending on passing mechanism Date: 1997/10/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 281990378 Distribution: world References: <622b4t$nhe$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl> Original-Sender: jsa@synquiry.com Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-10-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) writes: > My paper (ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/LimitedRobbery.html) shows > how copy-in, copy-out semantics violates the notion of limited private > types, and is therefore a dangerous idea. Yes, that's correct. It was this paper in particular that made me force the issue with access parameters for the limited types I use in the GC asset suite I've constructed. Yes, it kinda sucks because it forces a lot of explicitly "aliased" junk. > I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but you should be aware that > Ada has serious flaws that are visible to those outside the Ada > community, although (apparently) are not visible to those within the > community. Well, I certainly understand and appreciate what you are saying here. This particular cock-up made my top list of goofs in a previous thread... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari