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,d402e2c741db0d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-09 15:29:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Language lawyer question: Equality on 'Access attributes Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:27:25 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <4LKdnRRNyv6AlmCiRVn-ig@comcast.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4283 Date: 2004-01-09T17:27:25-06:00 List-Id: "Robert I. Eachus" wrote in message news:XridndndEa-m2mOiRVn-hQ@comcast.com... ... > The technical question is how many "=" operations could apply in this > case. My contention was that there are at least two, one associated > with the 'Access attributes (actually I think there is one for each > attribute) and one declared by the user. Huh? There is nothing in the RM about types being declared by 'Access. The only way to get an anonymous access type is via an access_definition, as in a parameter. And anonymous access types don't even have their own "=", see 4.5.2(6) "...for every type T that is not limited, and is not an anonymous access type." Ada 200Y probably will change this slightly; we've spent a lot of ARG time looking at this area because we want to expand the places that anonymous access types can be used. In any case, in the original example, there is only one "=", so Adam is right. In Ada 200Y, as currently envisioned, I think that this would be ambiguous (because the universal "=" would also be a possibility). But that's in the future and could change. Randy.