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: a07f3367d7,d23826ff0acb491b
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.mv.net!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Gem 39 - compiler specific?
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:26:12 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccljkuaaff.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <9e0bbbcd-260f-48ed-8043-d6280c633e85@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <h7mumh$707$1@munin.nbi.dk> <19268dbw82hf4.aii8as09aapk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4bff103b-1797-4e2b-9dcf-7466b667c59b@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <1s8kuin5t96vr$.1taw9mluqlplz$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1bf4b63a-1e2d-41f1-97c6-8324d4b829ff@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1252085173 8459 192.74.137.71 (4 Sep 2009 17:26:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:26:13 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zmheYCbaLj3FGlPZ+IleqNdgu1A=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8160
Date: 2009-09-04T13:26:12-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:

> However, one could make that case that if you declare a pool-specific
> access type, then by definition it should point to something that's in
> a pool; and that if you want an access that could point to an
> arbitrary address (as Access_To_Address_Conversions would let you do),
> you should use a general access type.

The term "pool specific" is a misnomer.  It's got nothing to do with
"storage pools".  This is my fault -- I was trying to reduce the amount
of terminology in Ada 95, by using the new term, but I must have been
confused when I did that.

The correct term should be "collection-specific", using the Ada 83 term
"collection".

So instead of your "in a pool" above, I'd put it this way: A
pool-specific (sic) access value has to point to some object
created by "new" for that access type.  (Well, I'm ignoring
derived access types, which are vanishingly rare in practice.)
It can't (legitimately) point to a stack object, a component
of another object, or an object created by "new" for some other
type.

- Bob