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 Subject: Re: Subverting 'Access for Sub-programs Date: 1999/08/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 509180545 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <37A71EF1.2201@dera.gov.uk> <37A7FDE8.4F5@dera.gov.uk> <7o9vrv$qgt$1@wanadoo.fr> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-08-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Jean-Pierre Rosen" writes: > I understood from a previous message that you didn't like the solution with > a generic taking a formal procedure. > It seems however that it would allow you to do precisely what you want. > You may not "like" generics, but they are inherently safer than access > values. Actually, in the discussion about downward closures, it was noted > that all the cases presented could be equally well be dealt with with > generics, and therefore that it was not worth introducing a risky feature. There is nothing "risky" about the "limited access-to-subprogram" feature proposed in an LSN by the design team. It is equally as safe as the generic solution. However, you are correct that the generic solution will work in most cases. - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.