From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Conversion of Access Types Question
Date: 1999/01/20
Date: 1999-01-20T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wccu2xmq6k3.fsf@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 77ma9b$6ep$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
dewar@gnat.com writes:
> This is a very common misunderstanding in Ada 95, which is
> why we recently added the second message, since it is
> almost certain to be the right fix. Some Ada 95 programmers
> simply make a rule of using "ALL" for all access types.
In retrospect, I think the distinction between the two kinds of access
types (with and without "all") is not useful enough to have in the
language. It's a little bit useful, but as you can see, it causes
confusion. It would have been better to simply make all access types
behave like the "all" kind, and get rid of the "all" syntax.
That's what Tucker wanted to do in the first place, by the way.
He was convinced otherwise, partly by me. :-(
- Bob
--
Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-01-20 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-01-14 0:00 Conversion of Access Types Question Paul S. Heidmann
1999-01-14 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Paul S. Heidmann
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-01-14 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-15 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-20 0:00 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
1999-01-20 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-20 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-01-21 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-27 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-01-28 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-21 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Tom Moran
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox