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,daf1e35a4e978e9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-21 17:50:30 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uunet!sea.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: have to use unrestricted access but just what about access
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wcck7osuogb.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:49:56 GMT
References: <0x8Q8.6779$ZP1.1263481@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>
 <wccznxqni7o.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <5ee5b646.0206210345.2d58d8e0@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26581
Date: 2002-06-22T00:49:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<wccznxqni7o.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>...
> > "chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> writes:
> > 
> > > How can the unrestricted_access attribute be replaced by just access in the
> > > following code?
> > 
> > You should be using 'Unchecked_Access here, which is a standard feature
> > of Ada (albeit unsafe).
> > 
> > 'Unrestricted_Access is a feature of GNAT, and is not necessary in your
> > example.
> > 
> > - Bob
> 
> Bob look again!

> One of the nasty restrictions in Ada 95 is that you cannot make parameters
> aliased. This means that they can never be used in access attributes. This
> is indeed one use of unrestricted access that is useful and legitimate, though
> of course passing such an access value out assumes call by reference, and you
> have to be sure that you can gaurantee call by reference.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about a *component* of a parameter, where
the component was explicitly declared aliased.  Also, you can make a
parameter aliased by making it tagged.

I agree that this is a nasty restriction in Ada 95 -- one ought to be
allowed to declare the parameter aliased explicitly, and taggedness
shouldn't have anything to do with the matter.

- Bob