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: 103376,e1c47fd1b76b1c05
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!newsprint.newsread.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Task entries and access to subprograms.
Date: 08 Apr 2005 10:49:18 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcczmw9z5ld.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <4253B917.5070800@mailinator.com>
 <sz05e.2222$yq6.1165@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <4254E00C.30908@mailinator.com> <tIOdnR2ThMvFXcjfRVn-3g@megapath.net>
 <42562996.9010306@mailinator.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1112971758 14283 192.74.137.71 (8 Apr 2005 14:49:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10334
Date: 2005-04-08T10:49:18-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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