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: 103376,87557ce53b069315
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com
Subject: Re: meaning of "current instance"
Date: 1999/11/14
Message-ID: <zaoX3.10259$dp.270354@typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 548307413
References: <wccbt8y2fc4.fsf@world.std.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net
X-Trace: typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net 942542623 206.170.24.34 (Sat,
 13 Nov 1999 17:23:43 PST)
Organization: SBC Internet Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 17:23:43 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-11-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>I think the "why" is simply, "try to understand all the ramifications
>of referring to the current instance of a type".
Yes.
  Is there anything you can do with "current instance" that couldn't
be done (and perhaps more safely) with Initialize on a Controlled type?
I grant that ":=T'access;" is simpler, but it could be done with
Initialize.