Re: Task entries and access to subprograms.

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com> writes:

> I see. One thing I've never fully understood (and I'm ashamed to admit
> it, since I've read and forgotten the rationale at least a couple of
> times) is why One (Foo'Access) is illegal in your example. This gives
> multiple headaches (say, using Unchecked_Access :)) in situations who
> are clearly void of risk.

Could you please show an example that is void of risk,
for discussion purposes?

> I think these rules have been somewhat relaxed in 0Y, to add to my
> confusion, but at least now I don't find so many unexpected failed
> checks. It may be simply that the "not null access" moves the check out
> as in your Two example, but I must reread it (both 95 and 0Y).

I didn't know the accessibility rules had changed in *this* area, but I
could be wrong.  Yes, the "not null access" moves the check to a
different place in the code, and moves it from compile time to run time.

- Bob