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: 103376,2308afbbe4ecec0b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Subverting 'Access for Sub-programs
Date: 1999/08/04
Message-ID: <wccd7x3g08n.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 508761336
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <37A71EF1.2201@dera.gov.uk> <7o8a11$ihv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-08-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:

> P.S. We have found Unrestricted_Access to be vital for
> implementing some of our run time and library packages (see
> for example the implementation of GNAT.Spitbol.Patterns in
> g-spipat.ads/adb files)

Robert,

Please explain why generic formal subprograms are not sufficient for
this purpose.  During the design, that was the main rationale for why we
don't need downward closures (which I didn't buy, by the way).

- Bob
-- 
Change robert to bob to get my real email address.  Sorry.