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: 103376,9a4a0b8e5206a866 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Conversion of Access Types Question Date: 1999/01/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 434848249 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <369DFFFC.A160D47C@neta.com> <77l492$b5s@hobbes.crc.com> <77ma9b$6ep$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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.