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,c08a7609345f4e5
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.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: Limited use for limited with?
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:35:06 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcclj672p0l.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <853314bc-0f79-435f-86a5-d7bcdd610731@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <f7b952cc-bc96-4e4c-ae72-ba08ca1e3445@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <82y6ajg07m.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <eb67bb81-aea2-4044-a6e5-7e03eb72b118@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
 <82ocb6ushq.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <op.vj7xjle3z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
 <c2a9a958-23ad-4cc2-b2f1-3dc37e1f9a13@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vkapngo9z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1286649291 26080 192.74.137.71 (9 Oct 2010 18:34:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 18:34:51 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/EIqL9H4QMezGiMU4M6FOxvmao4=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14466
Date: 2010-10-09T14:35:06-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> But then he used an access all in his example - which AFAIK might needs
> a  dynamic check as well.

All accessibility checks on named access types with "all"
are done at compile time.  According to the RM, they are
done at run time in some generic-related cases, but most
compilers (the ones that do macro-expanded generics)
will check those at compile time, too (and give a warning).

Only anonymous access types have run-time accessibility
checking (which I think was a mistake, by the way).

But if you use 'Unchecked_Access, you will defeat both the
compile-time and the run-time checks.

- Bob