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-Thread: 103376,4cb1f8d1c17d39a8
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.42.176.130 with SMTP id be2mr4107660icb.3.1320333886045;
        Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p6ni66820pbn.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 'hello world' for Android; success!
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:24:43 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccaa8dp6tg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <8239efcjuw.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <98ca5430-aa52-4e39-b789-70d0dd6adb46@d33g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
 <824nyrq5p6.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <4eac1ca1$0$7625$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <82mxciogt0.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <4eafbc25$0$6575$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <82mxcemscg.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <4eb1e241$0$7627$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <8239e5mo9q.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1320333885 28079 192.74.137.71 (3 Nov 2011 15:24:45
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:24:45 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qju0qxZTOxaPQrdNSR403c62pA0=
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14291
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2011-11-03T11:24:43-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:

> I agree this use of 'access' is different, since it is 'access
> procedure', not 'access object'; no allocations are needed. But I
> suspect some purists would still object :).

"not null access procedure" is pretty safe.  It can't fail a null check.
And there's no Unchecked_Deallocation or Unchecked_Access, so it
can't dangle.  (In GNAT, you can use the non-standard
'Unrestricted_Access to create dangling access-to-proc.)
So, yes, it's totally different from an access to object.

I wish the syntax were just "procedure...", leaving off the
"not null access", which is just noise.

- Bob