Ada Conformity Assessment Authority      Home Conformity Assessment   Test Suite ARGAda Standard
 
Annotated Ada Reference Manual (Ada 202x Draft 11)Legal Information
Contents   Index   References   Search   Previous   Next 

3.10.2 Operations of Access Types

1/3
{AI05-0299-1} [The attribute Access is used to create access values designating aliased objects and nonintrinsic subprograms. The “accessibility” rules prevent dangling references (in the absence of uses of certain unchecked features — see Clause 13).]

Language Design Principles

1.a
It should be possible for an access value to designate an object declared by an object declaration, or a subcomponent thereof. In implementation terms, this means pointing at stack-allocated and statically allocated data structures. However, dangling references should be prevented, primarily via compile-time rules, so long as features like Unchecked_Access and Unchecked_Deallocation are not used.
1.b
In order to create such access values, we require that the access type be a general access type, that the designated object be aliased, and that the accessibility rules be obeyed. 

Name Resolution Rules

2/2
{AI95-00235-01} For an attribute_reference with attribute_designator Access (or Unchecked_Access — see 13.10), the expected type shall be a single access type A such that: 
2.1/2
{AI95-00235-01} A is an access-to-object type with designated type D and the type of the prefix is D'Class or is covered by D, or
2.2/2
{AI95-00235-01} A is an access-to-subprogram type whose designated profile is type conformant with that of the prefix. 
2.3/2
 {AI95-00235-01} [The prefix of such an attribute_reference is never interpreted as an implicit_dereference or a parameterless function_call (see 4.1.4).] The designated type or profile of the expected type of the attribute_reference is the expected type or profile for the prefix.
2.a
Discussion: Saying that the expected type shall be a "single access type" is our "new" way of saying that the type has to be determinable from context using only the fact that it is an access type. See 4.2 and 8.6. Specifying the expected profile only implies type conformance. The more stringent subtype conformance is required by a Legality Rule. This is the only Resolution Rule that applies to the name in a prefix of an attribute_reference. In all other cases, the name has to be resolved without using context. See 4.1.4.
2.b/2
{AI95-00235-01} Saying “single access type” is a bit of a fudge. Both the context and the prefix may provide both multiple types; “single” only means that a single, specific interpretation must remain after resolution. We say “single” here to trigger the Legality Rules of 8.6. The resolution of an access attribute is similar to that of an assignment_statement. For example: 
2.c/2
type Int_Ptr is access all Integer;
type Char_Ptr is access all Character;
type Float_Ptr is access all Float;
2.d/2
function Zap (Val : Int_Ptr) return Float;   -- (1)
function Zap (Val : Float_Ptr) return Float; -- (2)
function Zop return Int_Ptr;  -- (3)
function Zop return Char_Ptr; -- (4)
2.e/2
Result : Float := Zap (Zop.all'Access); -- Resolves to Zap (1) and Zop (3).

Static Semantics

3/2
{AI95-00162-01} [The accessibility rules, which prevent dangling references, are written in terms of accessibility levels, which reflect the run-time nesting of masters. As explained in 7.6.1, a master is the execution of a certain construct, such as a subprogram_body. An accessibility level is deeper than another if it is more deeply nested at run time. For example, an object declared local to a called subprogram has a deeper accessibility level than an object declared local to the calling subprogram. The accessibility rules for access types require that the accessibility level of an object designated by an access value be no deeper than that of the access type. This ensures that the object will live at least as long as the access type, which in turn ensures that the access value cannot later designate an object that no longer exists. The Unchecked_Access attribute may be used to circumvent the accessibility rules.]
3.a/3
Discussion: {AI05-0005-1} The Unchecked_Access attribute acts as if the object was declared at library-level; this applies even when it is used as the value of anonymous access type. See 13.10.
3.b/3
Subclause 3.10.2, home of the accessibility rules, is informally known as the “Heart of Darkness” amongst the maintainers of Ada. Woe unto all who enter here (well, at least unto anyone that needs to understand any of these rules).
4
[A given accessibility level is said to be statically deeper than another if the given level is known at compile time (as defined below) to be deeper than the other for all possible executions. In most cases, accessibility is enforced at compile time by Legality Rules. Run-time accessibility checks are also used, since the Legality Rules do not cover certain cases involving access parameters and generic packages.]
5
Each master, and each entity and view created by it, has an accessibility level: 
6
The accessibility level of a given master is deeper than that of each dynamically enclosing master, and deeper than that of each master upon which the task executing the given master directly depends (see 9.3).
7/4
{AI95-00162-01} {AI95-00416-01} {AI05-0235-1} {AI12-0067-1} {AI12-0089-1} An entity or view defined by a declaration and created as part of its elaboration has the same accessibility level as the innermost master of the declaration except in the cases of renaming and derived access types described below. Other than for an explicitly aliased parameter of a function or generic function, a formal parameter of a callable entity has the same accessibility level as the master representing the invocation of the entity. 
7.a/2
Reason: {AI95-00416-01} This rule defines the “normal” accessibility of entities. In the absence of special rules below, we intend for this rule to apply.
7.b/4
Discussion: {AI95-00416-01} {AI12-0005-1} This rule defines the accessibility of all named access types, as well as the accessibility level of all anonymous access types in a component_definition other than those for access parameters and access discriminants. Special rules exist for the accessibility level of other such anonymous types. Components, stand-alone objects, and function results whose (anonymous) type is defined by an access_definition have accessibility levels corresponding to named access types defined at the same point. 
7.c/2
Ramification: {AI95-00230-01} Because accessibility level is determined by where the access_definition is elaborated, for a type extension, the anonymous access types of components (other than access discriminants) inherited from the parent have the same accessibility as they did in the parent; those in the extension part have the accessibility determined by the scope where the type extension is declared. Similarly, the types of the nondiscriminant access components of a derived untagged type have the same accessibility as they did in the parent. 
7.d/3
To be honest: {AI05-0235-1} We use "invocation of" in the parameter case as a master is formally an execution of something. But we mean this to be interpreted statically (for instance, as the body of the subprogram) for the purposes of computing "statically deeper than" (see below). 
7.e/3
Ramification: {AI05-0235-1} Note that accessibility can differ depending on the view of an object (for both static and dynamic accessibility). For instance, the accessibility level of a formal parameter may be different than the accessibility level of the corresponding actual parameter. This occurs in other cases as well. 
7.f/3
Reason: {AI05-0235-1} We define the (dynamic) accessibility of formal parameters in order that it does not depend on the parameter passing model (by-reference or by-copy) as that is implementation defined. Otherwise, there would be a portability issue. 
8
The accessibility level of a view of an object or subprogram defined by a renaming_declaration is the same as that of the renamed view.
9/2
{AI95-00416-01} The accessibility level of a view conversion, qualified_expression, or parenthesized expression, is the same as that of the operand.
9.1/3
{AI05-0188-1} The accessibility level of a conditional_expression is the accessibility level of the evaluated dependent_expression.
10/4
{AI95-00318-02} {AI95-00416-01} {AI05-0234-1} {AI12-0027-1} The accessibility level of an aggregate that is used (in its entirety) to directly initialize part of an object is that of the object being initialized. In other contexts, the accessibility level of an aggregate is that of the innermost master that evaluates the aggregate. Corresponding rules apply to a value conversion (see 4.6).
10.1/3
{AI05-0234-1} The accessibility level of the result of a function call is that of the master of the function call, which is determined by the point of call as follows:
10.2/3
If the result is used (in its entirety) to directly initialize part of an object, the master is that of the object being initialized. In the case where the initialized object is a coextension (see below) that becomes a coextension of another object, the master is that of the eventual object to which the coextension will be transferred.
10.a/2
To be honest: {AI95-00416-01} The first sentence is talking about a static use of the entire return object — a slice that happens to be the entire return object doesn't count. On the other hand, this is intended to allow parentheses and qualified_expressions.
10.b/3
Ramification: {AI95-00416-01} {AI05-0234-1} If the function is used as a prefix, this bullet does not apply. Similarly, an assignment_statement is not an initialization of an object, so this bullet does not apply.
10.3/3
If the result is of an anonymous access type and is the operand of an explicit conversion, the master is that of the target type of the conversion;
10.4/3
If the result is of an anonymous access type and defines an access discriminant, the master is the same as that for an object created by an anonymous allocator that defines an access discriminant (even if the access result is of an access-to-subprogram type).
10.5/3
If the call itself defines the result of a function to which one of the above rules applies, these rules are applied recursively;
10.6/3
In other cases, the master of the call is that of the innermost master that evaluates the function call.
10.c/2
Ramification: {AI95-00318-02} {AI95-00416-01} The “innermost master which evaluated the function call” does not include the function call itself (which might be a master).
10.d/2
{AI95-00318-02} {AI95-00416-01} We really mean the innermost master here, which could be a very short lifetime. Consider a function call used as a parameter of a procedure call. In this case the innermost master which evaluated the function call is the procedure call. 
10.d.1/3
Ramification: {AI05-0234-1} These rules do not mention whether the result object is built-in-place (see 7.6). In particular, in the case where building in place is optional, the choice whether or not to build-in-place has no effect on masters, lifetimes, or accessibility. 
10.d.2/3
Implementation Note: {AI05-0234-1} There are several cases where the implementation may have to pass in the accessibility level of the result object on a call, to support later rules where the accessibility level comes from the master of the call:
10.d.3/3
when the function result may have a part with access discriminants;
10.d.4/3
when the function result type is an anonymous access type;
10.d.5/3
when the function result is built-in-place;
10.d.6/3
when the function has an explicitly aliased parameter. 
10.d.7/3
In particular, this implies passing a level parameter when the result type is class-wide, since descendants may add access discriminants. For most implementations this will mean that functions with controlling results will also need a level parameter. 
10.7/3
{AI05-0284-1} In the case of a call to a function whose result type is an anonymous access type, the accessibility level of the type of the result of the function call is also determined by the point of call as described above.
10.8/3
{AI95-00416-01} Within a return statement, the accessibility level of the return object is that of the execution of the return statement. If the return statement completes normally by returning from the function, then prior to leaving the function, the accessibility level of the return object changes to be a level determined by the point of call, as does the level of any coextensions (see below) of the return object.
10.e/2
Reason: We define the accessibility level of the return object during the return statement to be that of the return statement itself so that the object may be designated by objects local to the return statement, but not by objects outside the return statement. In addition, the intent is that the return object gets finalized if the return statement ends without actually returning (for example, due to propagating an exception, or a goto). For a normal return, of course, no finalization is done before returning. 
11
The accessibility level of a derived access type is the same as that of its ultimate ancestor.
11.1/2
{AI95-00230-01} The accessibility level of the anonymous access type defined by an access_definition of an object_renaming_declaration is the same as that of the renamed view.
11.2/5
{AI12-0156-1} The accessibility level of the anonymous access type defined by an access_definition of a loop_parameter_subtype_indication is that of the loop parameter.
12/2
{AI95-00230-01} {AI95-00416-01} The accessibility level of the anonymous access type of an access discriminant in the subtype_indication or qualified_expression of an allocator, or in the expression or return_subtype_indication of a return statement is determined as follows:
12.1/2
If the value of the access discriminant is determined by a discriminant_association in a subtype_indication, the accessibility level of the object or subprogram designated by the associated value (or library level if the value is null); 
12.a/2
Discussion: This deals with the following cases, when they occur in the context of an allocator or return statement: 
12.b/2
An extension_aggregate where the ancestor_part is a subtype_mark denoting a constrained subtype;
12.c/2
An uninitialized allocator where the subtype_indication defines a constrained subtype;
12.d/2
A discriminant of an object with a constrained nominal subtype, including constrained components, the result of calling a function with a constrained result subtype, the dereference of an access-to-constrained subtype, etc. 
12.e/3
Ramification: {AI05-0281-1} The subtype_indication mentioned in this bullet is not necessarily the one given in the allocator or return statement that is determining the accessibility level; the constrained subtype might have been defined in an earlier declaration (as a named subtype).
12.f/3
{AI05-0005-1} If the value for this rule and the next one is derived from an Unchecked_Access attribute, the accessibility is library-level no matter what the accessibility level of the object is (see 13.10). 
12.2/3
{AI05-0234-1} If the value of the access discriminant is determined by a default_expression in the declaration of the discriminant, the level of the object or subprogram designated by the associated value (or library level if null); 
12.f.1/3
Discussion: This covers the case of an unconstrained subcomponent of a limited type with defaulted access discriminants.
12.3/3
{AI05-0004-1} If the value of the access discriminant is determined by a record_component_association in an aggregate, the accessibility level of the object or subprogram designated by the associated value (or library level if the value is null);
12.g/2
Discussion: In this bullet, the aggregate has to occur in the context of an allocator or return statement, while the subtype_indication of the previous bullet can occur anywhere (it doesn't have to be directly given in the allocator or return statement). 
12.4/3
In other cases, where the value of the access discriminant is determined by an object with an unconstrained nominal subtype, the accessibility level of the object.
12.h/2
Discussion: {AI95-00416-01} In other words, if you know the value of the discriminant for an allocator or return statement from a discriminant constraint or an aggregate component association, then that determines the accessibility level; if you don't know it, then it is based on the object itself. 
12.5/3
{AI95-00416-01} The accessibility level of the anonymous access type of an access discriminant in any other context is that of the enclosing object.
13/3
{AI95-00162-01} {AI95-00254-01} {AI05-0270-1} The accessibility level of the anonymous access type of an access parameter specifying an access-to-object type is the same as that of the view designated by the actual (or library-level if the actual is null). 
13.a/3
Ramification: {AI05-0005-1} If the value of the actual is derived from an Unchecked_Access attribute, the accessibility is always library-level (see 13.10).
13.1/2
{AI95-00254-01} The accessibility level of the anonymous access type of an access parameter specifying an access-to-subprogram type is deeper than that of any master; all such anonymous access types have this same level. 
13.b/2
Reason: These represent “downward closures” and thus require passing of static links or global display information (along with generic sharing information if the implementation does sharing) along with the address of the subprogram. We must prevent conversions of these to types with “normal” accessibility, as those typically don't include the extra information needed to make a call. 
13.2/4
{AI12-0070-1} The accessibility level of the anonymous access subtype defined by a return_subtype_indication that is an access_definition (see 6.5) is that of the result subtype of the enclosing function.
13.3/4
{AI05-0148-1} {AI05-0240-1} {AI12-0070-1} The accessibility level of the type of a stand-alone object of an anonymous access-to-object type is the same as the accessibility level of the type of the access value most recently assigned to the object[; accessibility checks ensure that this is never deeper than that of the declaration of the stand-alone object].
13.4/4
{AI05-0142-4} {AI05-0240-1} {AI12-0070-1} The accessibility level of an explicitly aliased (see 6.1) formal parameter in a function body is determined by the point of call; it is the same level that the return object ultimately will have.
14/3
{AI95-00416-01} {AI05-0051-1} {AI05-0253-1} The accessibility level of an object created by an allocator is the same as that of the access type, except for an allocator of an anonymous access type (an anonymous allocator) in certain contexts, as follows: For an anonymous allocator that defines the result of a function with an access result, the accessibility level is determined as though the allocator were in place of the call of the function; in the special case of a call that is the operand of a type conversion, the level is that of the target access type of the conversion. For an anonymous allocator defining the value of an access parameter, the accessibility level is that of the innermost master of the call. For an anonymous allocator whose type is that of a stand-alone object of an anonymous access-to-object type, the accessibility level is that of the declaration of the stand-alone object. For one defining an access discriminant, the accessibility level is determined as follows:
14.1/3
{AI95-00416-01} {AI05-0024-1} for an allocator used to define the discriminant of an object, the level of the object;
14.2/3
{AI95-00416-01} {AI05-0024-1} for an allocator used to define the constraint in a subtype_indication in any other context, the level of the master that elaborates the subtype_indication.
14.3/3
This paragraph was deleted.{AI95-00416-01} {AI05-0024-1}
14.4/3
{AI95-00416-01} {AI05-0024-1} {AI05-0066-1} In the first case, the allocated object is said to be a coextension of the object whose discriminant designates it, as well as of any object of which the discriminated object is itself a coextension or subcomponent. If the allocated object is a coextension of an anonymous object representing the result of an aggregate or function call that is used (in its entirety) to directly initialize a part of an object, after the result is assigned, the coextension becomes a coextension of the object being initialized and is no longer considered a coextension of the anonymous object. All coextensions of an object [(which have not thus been transfered by such an initialization)] are finalized when the object is finalized (see 7.6.1). 
14.a.1/2
Ramification: The rules of access discriminants are such that when the space for an object with a coextension is reclaimed, the space for the coextensions can be reclaimed. Hence, there is implementation advice (see 13.11) that an object and its coextensions all be allocated from the same storage pool (or stack frame, in the case of a declared object). 
14.5/3
{AI05-0051-1} Within a return statement, the accessibility level of the anonymous access type of an access result is that of the master of the call.
15/3
{AI05-0014-1} The accessibility level of a view of an object or subprogram designated by an access value is the same as that of the access type. 
15.a/3
Discussion: {AI05-0005-1} {AI05-0014-1} This rule applies even when no dereference exists, for example when an access value is passed as an access parameter. This rule ensures that implementations are not required to include dynamic accessibility values with all access values. 
16
The accessibility level of a component, protected subprogram, or entry of (a view of) a composite object is the same as that of (the view of) the composite object. 
16.1/3
  {AI95-00416-01} {AI05-0262-1} In the above rules, the operand of a view conversion, parenthesized expression or qualified_expression is considered to be used in a context if the view conversion, parenthesized expression or qualified_expression itself is used in that context. Similarly, a dependent_expression of a conditional_expression is considered to be used in a context if the conditional_expression itself is used in that context.
17
One accessibility level is defined to be statically deeper than another in the following cases: 
18
For a master that is statically nested within another master, the accessibility level of the inner master is statically deeper than that of the outer master. 
18.a
To be honest: Strictly speaking, this should talk about the constructs (such as subprogram_bodies) being statically nested within one another; the masters are really the executions of those constructs. 
18.b
To be honest: If a given accessibility level is statically deeper than another, then each level defined to be the same as the given level is statically deeper than each level defined to be the same as the other level. 
18.1/2
{AI95-00254-01} The accessibility level of the anonymous access type of an access parameter specifying an access-to-subprogram type is statically deeper than that of any master; all such anonymous access types have this same level.
18.c/2
Ramification: This rule means that it is illegal to convert an access parameter specifying an access to subprogram to a named access to subprogram type, but it is allowed to pass such an access parameter to another access parameter (the implicit conversion's accessibility will succeed). 
19/3
{AI95-00254-01} {AI05-0082-1} The statically deeper relationship does not apply to the accessibility level of the anonymous type of an access parameter specifying an access-to-object type nor does it apply to a descendant of a generic formal type; that is, such an accessibility level is not considered to be statically deeper, nor statically shallower, than any other.
19.1/3
{AI05-0148-1} The statically deeper relationship does not apply to the accessibility level of the type of a stand-alone object of an anonymous access-to-object type; that is, such an accessibility level is not considered to be statically deeper, nor statically shallower, than any other.
19.a/3
Ramification: In these cases, we use dynamic accessibility checks. 
19.2/4
{AI05-0142-4} {AI05-0235-1} {AI12-0089-1} {AI12-0157-1} Inside a return statement that applies to a function or generic function F, or the return expression of an expression function Fwhen determining whether the accessibility level of an explicitly aliased parameter of F is statically deeper than the level of the return object of F, the level of the return object is considered to be the same as that of the level of the explicitly aliased parameter; for statically comparing with the level of other entities, an explicitly aliased parameter of F is considered to have the accessibility level of the body of F.
19.3/4
{AI05-0051-1} {AI05-0234-1} {AI05-0235-1} {AI12-0089-1} {AI12-0157-1} For determining whether a level is statically deeper than the level of the anonymous access type of an access result of a function or generic function F, when within a return statement that applies to F or the return expression of expression function F the function, the level of the master of the call is presumed to be the same as that of the level of the master that elaborated the function body of F.
19.b/3
To be honest: {AI05-0235-1} This rule has no effect if the previous bullet also applies (that is, the “a level” is of an explicitly aliased parameter). 
20
[For determining whether one level is statically deeper than another when within a generic package body, the generic package is presumed to be instantiated at the same level as where it was declared; run-time checks are needed in the case of more deeply nested instantiations.]
20.a/3
Proof: {AI05-0082-1} A generic package does not introduce a new master, so it has the static level of its declaration; the rest follows from the other “statically deeper” rules. 
21
For determining whether one level is statically deeper than another when within the declarative region of a type_declaration, the current instance of the type is presumed to be an object created at a deeper level than that of the type. 
21.a
Ramification: In other words, the rules are checked at compile time of the type_declaration, in an assume-the-worst manner. 
22
The accessibility level of all library units is called the library level; a library-level declaration or entity is one whose accessibility level is the library level. 
22.a
Ramification: Library_unit_declarations are library level. Nested declarations are library level if they are nested only within packages (possibly more than one), and not within subprograms, tasks, etc. 
22.b/2
To be honest: The definition of the accessibility level of the anonymous type of an access parameter specifying an access-to-object type cheats a bit, since it refers to the view designated by the actual, but access values designate objects, not views of objects. What we really mean is the view that “would be” denoted by an expression “X.all”, where X is the actual, even though such an expression is a figment of our imagination. The definition is intended to be equivalent to the following more verbose version: The accessibility level of the anonymous type of an access parameter is as follows: 
22.c
if the actual is an expression of a named access type — the accessibility level of that type;
22.d
if the actual is an allocator — the accessibility level of the execution of the called subprogram;
22.e/1
if the actual is a reference to the Access attribute — the accessibility level of the view denoted by the prefix;
22.f
if the actual is a reference to the Unchecked_Access attribute — library accessibility level;
22.g
if the actual is an access parameter — the accessibility level of its type. 
22.h
Note that the allocator case is explicitly mentioned in the RM95, because otherwise the definition would be circular: the level of the anonymous type is that of the view designated by the actual, which is that of the access type. 
22.i
Discussion: A deeper accessibility level implies a shorter maximum lifetime. Hence, when a rule requires X to have a level that is “not deeper than” Y's level, this requires that X has a lifetime at least as long as Y. (We say “maximum lifetime” here, because the accessibility level really represents an upper bound on the lifetime; an object created by an allocator can have its lifetime prematurely ended by an instance of Unchecked_Deallocation.)
22.j
Package elaborations are not masters, and are therefore invisible to the accessibility rules: an object declared immediately within a package has the same accessibility level as an object declared immediately within the declarative region containing the package. This is true even in the body of a package; it jibes with the fact that objects declared in a package_body live as long as objects declared outside the package, even though the body objects are not visible outside the package.
22.k
Note that the level of the view denoted by X.all can be different from the level of the object denoted by X.all. The former is determined by the type of X; the latter is determined either by the type of the allocator, or by the master in which the object was declared. The former is used in several Legality Rules and run-time checks; the latter is used to define when X.all gets finalized. The level of a view reflects what we can conservatively “know” about the object of that view; for example, due to type_conversions, an access value might designate an object that was allocated by an allocator for a different access type.
22.l
Similarly, the level of the view denoted by X.all.Comp can be different from the level of the object denoted by X.all.Comp.
22.m
If Y is statically deeper than X, this implies that Y will be (dynamically) deeper than X in all possible executions.
22.n
Most accessibility checking is done at compile time; the rules are stated in terms of “statically deeper than”. The exceptions are: 
22.o/2
Checks involving access parameters of an access-to-object type. The fact that “statically deeper than” is not defined for the anonymous access type of an access parameter implies that any rule saying “shall not be statically deeper than” does not apply to such a type, nor to anything defined to have “the same” level as such a type.
22.o.1/3
{AI05-0082-1} Checks involving generic formal types and their descendants. This is because the actual type can be more or less deeply nested than the generic unit. Note that this only applies to the generic unit itself, and not to the instance. Any static checks needed in the instance will be performed. Any other checks (such as those in the generic body) will require a run-time check of some sort (although implementations that macro-expand generics can determine the result of the check when the generic is expanded).
22.p/3
{AI05-0082-1} Checks involving other entities and views within generic packages. This is because an instantiation can be at a level that is more deeply nested than the generic package itself. In implementations that use a macro-expansion model of generics, these violations can be detected at macro-expansion time. For implementations that share generics, run-time code is needed to detect the error.
22.q/2
{AI95-00318-02} {AI95-00344-01} {AI95-00416-01} Checks during function return and allocators, for nested type extensions and access discriminants. 
22.r/3
{AI05-0005-1} Note that run-time checks are not required for access discriminants (except during function returns and allocators), because their accessibility is determined statically by the accessibility level of the enclosing object.
22.s/2
The accessibility level of the result object of a function reflects the time when that object will be finalized; we don't allow pointers to the object to survive beyond that time.
22.t
We sometimes use the terms “accessible” and “inaccessible” to mean that something has an accessibility level that is not deeper, or deeper, respectively, than something else.
22.u/2
Implementation Note: {AI95-00318-02} {AI95-00344-01} {AI95-00416-01} If an accessibility Legality Rule is satisfied, then the corresponding run-time check (if any) cannot fail (and a reasonable implementation will not generate any checking code) unless one of the cases requiring run-time checks mentioned previously is involved.
22.v
Accessibility levels are defined in terms of the relations “the same as” and “deeper than”. To make the discussion more concrete, we can assign actual numbers to each level. Here, we assume that library-level accessibility is level 0, and each level defined as “deeper than” is one level deeper. Thus, a subprogram directly called from the environment task (such as the main subprogram) would be at level 1, and so on.
22.w/2
Accessibility is not enforced at compile time for access parameters of an access-to-object type. The “obvious” implementation of the run-time checks would be inefficient, and would involve distributed overhead; therefore, an efficient method is given below. The “obvious” implementation would be to pass the level of the caller at each subprogram call, task creation, etc. This level would be incremented by 1 for each dynamically nested master. An Accessibility_Check would be implemented as a simple comparison — checking that X is not deeper than Y would involve checking that X <= Y.
22.x
A more efficient method is based on passing static nesting levels (within constructs that correspond at run time to masters — packages don't count). Whenever an access parameter is passed, an implicit extra parameter is passed with it. The extra parameter represents (in an indirect way) the accessibility level of the anonymous access type, and, therefore, the level of the view denoted by a dereference of the access parameter. This is analogous to the implicit “Constrained” bit associated with certain formal parameters of an unconstrained but definite composite subtype. In this method, we avoid distributed overhead: it is not necessary to pass any extra information to subprograms that have no access parameters. For anything other than an access parameter and its anonymous type, the static nesting level is known at compile time, and is defined analogously to the RM95 definition of accessibility level (e.g. derived access types get their nesting level from their parent). Checking “not deeper than” is a "<=" test on the levels.
22.y/2
For each access parameter of an access-to-object type, the static depth passed depends on the actual, as follows: 
22.z
If the actual is an expression of a named access type, pass the static nesting level of that type.
22.aa
If the actual is an allocator, pass the static nesting level of the caller, plus one.
22.bb/1
If the actual is a reference to the Access attribute, pass the level of the view denoted by the prefix.
22.cc
If the actual is a reference to the Unchecked_Access attribute, pass 0 (the library accessibility level).
22.dd/2
If the actual is an access parameter of an access-to-object type, usually just pass along the level passed in. However, if the static nesting level of the formal (access) parameter is greater than the static nesting level of the actual (access) parameter, the level to be passed is the minimum of the static nesting level of the access parameter and the actual level passed in. 
22.ee/2
For the Accessibility_Check associated with a type_conversion of an access parameter of an access-to-object type of a given subprogram to a named access type, if the target type is statically nested within the subprogram, do nothing; the check can't fail in this case. Otherwise, check that the value passed in is <= the static nesting depth of the target type. The other Accessibility_Checks are handled in a similar manner.
22.ff
This method, using statically known values most of the time, is efficient, and, more importantly, avoids distributed overhead.
22.ff.1/3
{AI05-0148-1} The implementation of accessibility checks for stand-alone objects of anonymous access-to-object types can be similar to that for anonymous access-to-object parameters. A static level suffices; it can be calculated using rules similar to those previously described for access parameters.
22.ff.2/3
{AI05-0148-1} One important difference between the stand-alone access variables and access parameters is that one can assign a local access parameter to a more global stand-alone access variable. Similarly, one can assign a more global access parameter to a more local stand-alone access variable.
22.ff.3/3
{AI05-0148-1} For these cases, it is important to note that the “correct” static accessibility level for an access parameter assigned to a stand-alone access object is the minimum of the passed in level and the static accessibility level of the stand-alone object itself. This is true since the static accessibility level passed in might be deeper than that of the stand-alone object, but the dynamic accessibility of the passed in object clearly must be shallower than the stand-alone object (whatever is passed in must live at least as long as the subprogram call). We do not need to keep a more local static level as accesses to objects statically deeper than the stand-alone object cannot be stored into the stand-alone object.
22.gg
Discussion: Examples of accessibility: 
22.hh/3
{AI05-0005-1} package body Lib_Unit is
    type T is tagged ...;
    type A0 is access all T;
    Global: A0 := ...;
    procedure P(X: in out T) is
        Y: aliased T;
        type A1 is access all T;
        Ptr0: A0 := Global; -- OK.
        Ptr1: A1 := X'Access; -- OK.
    begin
        Ptr1 := Y'Access; -- OK;
        Ptr0 := A0(Ptr1); -- Illegal type conversion!
        Ptr0 := X'Access; -- Illegal reference to Access attribute!
        Ptr0 := Y'Access; -- Illegal reference to Access attribute!
        Global := Ptr0; -- OK.
    end P;
end Lib_Unit;
22.ii/3
{AI05-0005-1} The above illegal statements are illegal because the accessibility levels of X and Y are statically deeper than the accessibility level of A0. In every possible execution of any program including this library unit, if P is called, the accessibility level of X will be (dynamically) deeper than that of A0. Note that the accessibility levels of X and Y are the same.
22.jj/2
Here's an example involving access parameters of an access-to-object type: 
22.kk
procedure Main is
    type Level_1_Type is access all Integer;
22.ll
    procedure P(X: access Integer) is
        type Nested_Type is access all Integer;
    begin
        ... Nested_Type(X) ... -- (1)
        ... Level_1_Type(X) ... -- (2)
    end P;
22.mm
    procedure Q(X: access Integer) is
        procedure Nested(X: access Integer) is
        begin
            P(X);
        end Nested;
    begin
        Nested(X);
    end Q;
22.nn
    procedure R is
        Level_2: aliased Integer;
    begin
        Q(Level_2'Access); -- (3)
    end R;
22.oo
    Level_1: aliased Integer;
begin
    Q(Level_1'Access); -- (4)
    R;
end Main;
22.pp
The run-time Accessibility_Check at (1) can never fail, and no code should be generated to check it. The check at (2) will fail when called from (3), but not when called from (4).
22.qq
Within a type_declaration, the rules are checked in an assume-the-worst manner. For example: 
22.rr/3
{AI05-0298-1} package P is
    type Int_Ptr is access all Integer;
    type Rec(D: access Integer) is limited private;
private
    type Rec_Ptr is access all Rec;
    function F(X: Rec_Ptr) return Boolean;
    function G(X: access Rec) return Boolean;
    type Rec(D: access Integer) is
        limited record
            C1: Int_Ptr := Int_Ptr(D); -- Illegal!
            C2: Rec_Ptr := Rec'Access; -- Illegal!
            C3: Boolean := F(Rec'Access); -- Illegal!
            C4: Boolean := G(Rec'Access);
        end record;
end P;
22.ss
C1, C2, and C3 are all illegal, because one might declare an object of type Rec at a more deeply nested place than the declaration of the type. C4 is legal, but the accessibility level of the object will be passed to function G, and constraint checks within G will prevent it from doing any evil deeds.
22.tt
Note that we cannot defer the checks on C1, C2, and C3 until compile-time of the object creation, because that would cause violation of the privacy of private parts. Furthermore, the problems might occur within a task or protected body, which the compiler can't see while compiling an object creation. 
23
The following attribute is defined for a prefix X that denotes an aliased view of an object: 
24/1
X'Access
{8652/0010} {AI95-00127-01} X'Access yields an access value that designates the object denoted by X. The type of X'Access is an access-to-object type, as determined by the expected type. The expected type shall be a general access type. X shall denote an aliased view of an object[, including possibly the current instance (see 8.6) of a limited type within its definition, or a formal parameter or generic formal object of a tagged type]. The view denoted by the prefix X shall satisfy the following additional requirements, presuming the expected type for X'Access is the general access type A with designated type D
25
If A is an access-to-variable type, then the view shall be a variable; [on the other hand, if A is an access-to-constant type, the view may be either a constant or a variable.]
25.a
Discussion: The current instance of a limited type is considered a variable. 
26/3
{AI95-00363-01} {AI05-0008-1} {AI05-0041-1} The view shall not be a subcomponent that depends on discriminants of an object unless the object is known to be constrained.
26.a
Discussion: This restriction is intended to be similar to the restriction on renaming discriminant-dependent subcomponents.
26.b
Reason: This prevents references to subcomponents that might disappear or move or change constraints after creating the reference. 
26.c
Implementation Note: There was some thought to making this restriction more stringent, roughly: "X shall not denote a subcomponent of a variable with discriminant-dependent subcomponents, if the nominal subtype of the variable is an unconstrained definite subtype." This was because in some implementations, it is not just the discriminant-dependent subcomponents that might move as the result of an assignment that changed the discriminants of the enclosing object. However, it was decided not to make this change because a reasonable implementation strategy was identified to avoid such problems, as follows: 
26.d
Place non-discriminant-dependent components with any aliased parts at offsets preceding any discriminant-dependent components in a discriminated record type with defaulted discriminants.
26.e
Preallocate the maximum space for unconstrained discriminated variables with aliased subcomponents, rather than allocating the initial size and moving them to a larger (heap-resident) place if they grow as the result of an assignment. 
26.f
Note that for objects of a by-reference type, it is not an error for a programmer to take advantage of the fact that such objects are passed by reference. Therefore, the above approach is also necessary for discriminated record types with components of a by-reference type.
26.g
To make the above strategy work, it is important that a component of a derived type is defined to be discriminant-dependent if it is inherited and the parent subtype constraint is defined in terms of a discriminant of the derived type (see 3.7).
27/2
{8652/0010} {AI95-00127-01} {AI95-00363-01} If A is a named access type and D is a tagged type, then the type of the view shall be covered by D; if A is anonymous and D is tagged, then the type of the view shall be either D'Class or a type covered by D; if D is untagged, then the type of the view shall be D, and either: 
27.1/2
{AI95-00363-01} the designated subtype of A shall statically match the nominal subtype of the view; or
27.2/4
{AI95-00363-01} {AI05-0041-1} {AI12-0095-1} D shall be discriminated in its full view and unconstrained in any partial view, and the designated subtype of A shall be unconstrained. For the purposes of determining within a generic body whether D is unconstrained in any partial view, a discriminated subtype is considered to have a constrained partial view if it is a descendant of an untagged generic formal private or derived type. 
27.a
Implementation Note: This ensures that the dope for an aliased array object can always be stored contiguous with it, but need not be if its nominal subtype is constrained. 
27.a.1/1
Ramification: {8652/0010} {AI95-00127-01} An access attribute can be used as the controlling operand in a dispatching call; see 3.9.2.
27.a.2/2
{AI95-00363-01} This does not require that types have a partial view in order to allow an access attribute of an unconstrained discriminated object, only that any partial view that does exist is unconstrained. 
27.a.3/4
Discussion: {AI12-0095-1} We assume the worst in a generic body whether or not a formal subtype has a constrained partial view; specifically, in a generic body a discriminated subtype is considered to have a constrained partial view if it is a descendant of an untagged generic formal private or derived type (see 12.5.1 for the formal definition of this rule). 
28/3
{AI05-0041-1} The accessibility level of the view shall not be statically deeper than that of the access type A.
28.a
Ramification: In an instance body, a run-time check applies.
28.b/2
{AI95-00230-01} If A is an anonymous access-to-object type of an access parameter, then the view can never have a deeper accessibility level than A. The same is true for an anonymous access-to-object type of an access discriminant, except when X'Access is used to initialize an access discriminant of an object created by an allocator. The latter case is illegal if the accessibility level of X is statically deeper than that of the access type of the allocator; a run-time check is needed in the case where the initial value comes from an access parameter. Other anonymous access-to-object types have "normal" accessibility checks. 
28.1/3
{AI05-0041-1} In addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3), these requirements apply also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.
29
A check is made that the accessibility level of X is not deeper than that of the access type A. If this check fails, Program_Error is raised.
29.a/2
Ramification: The check is needed for access parameters of an access-to-object type and in instance bodies.
29.a.1/3
{AI05-0024-1} Because there are no access parameters permitted for task entries, the accessibility levels are always comparable. We would have to switch to the terminology used in 4.8 and 6.5 based on inclusion within masters if we relax this restriction. That might introduce unacceptable distributed overhead. 
29.b/3
Implementation Note: {AI05-0148-1} This check requires that some indication of lifetime is passed as an implicit parameter along with access parameters of an access-to-object type. A similar indication is required for stand-alone objects of anonymous access-to-object types.No such requirement applies to other anonymous access types, since the checks associated with them are all compile-time checks. 
30
If the nominal subtype of X does not statically match the designated subtype of A, a view conversion of X to the designated subtype is evaluated (which might raise Constraint_Error — see 4.6) and the value of X'Access designates that view. 
31
The following attribute is defined for a prefix P that denotes a subprogram: 
32/3
P'Access
{AI95-00229-01} {AI95-00254-01} {AI05-0239-1} P'Access yields an access value that designates the subprogram denoted by P. The type of P'Access is an access-to-subprogram type (S), as determined by the expected type. The accessibility level of P shall not be statically deeper than that of S. In addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3), this rule applies also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit. The profile of P shall be subtype conformant with the designated profile of S, and shall not be Intrinsic. If the subprogram denoted by P is declared within a generic unit, and the expression P'Access occurs within the body of that generic unit or within the body of a generic unit declared within the declarative region of the generic unit, then the ultimate ancestor of S shall be either a nonformal type declared within the generic unit or an anonymous access type of an access parameter.
32.a/2
Discussion: {AI95-00229-01} The part about generic bodies is worded in terms of the denoted subprogram, not the denoted view; this implies that renaming is invisible to this part of the rule. “Declared within the declarative region of the generic” is referring to child and nested generic units. This rule is partly to prevent contract model problems with respect to the accessibility rules, and partly to ease shared-generic-body implementations, in which a subprogram declared in an instance needs to have a different calling convention from other subprograms with the same profile.
32.b
Overload resolution ensures only that the profile is type conformant. This rule specifies that subtype conformance is required (which also requires matching calling conventions). P cannot denote an entry because access-to-subprogram types never have the entry calling convention. P cannot denote an enumeration literal or an attribute function because these have intrinsic calling conventions. 

Legality Rules

32.1/3
  {AI05-0188-1} An expression is said to have distributed accessibility if it is
32.2/3
a conditional_expression (see 4.5.7); or
32.3/3
a view conversion, qualified_expression, or parenthesized expression whose operand has distributed accessibility.
32.4/3
  {AI05-0188-1} The statically deeper relationship does not apply to the accessibility level of an expression having distributed accessibility; that is, such an accessibility level is not considered to be statically deeper, nor statically shallower, than any other.
32.5/3
  {AI05-0188-1} Any static accessibility requirement that is imposed on an expression that has distributed accessibility (or on its type) is instead imposed on the dependent_expressions of the underlying conditional_expression. This rule is applied recursively if a dependent_expression also has distributed accessibility.
32.c/3
Discussion: This means that any Legality Rule requiring that the accessibility level of an expression (or that of the type of an expression) shall or shall not be statically deeper than some other level also applies, in the case where the expression has distributed accessibility, to each dependent_expression of the underlying conditional_expression.
NOTES
33
91  The Unchecked_Access attribute yields the same result as the Access attribute for objects, but has fewer restrictions (see 13.10). There are other predefined operations that yield access values: an allocator can be used to create an object, and return an access value that designates it (see 4.8); evaluating the literal null yields a null access value that designates no entity at all (see 4.2).
34/2
92  {AI95-00230-01} The predefined operations of an access type also include the assignment operation, qualification, and membership tests. Explicit conversion is allowed between general access types with matching designated subtypes; explicit conversion is allowed between access-to-subprogram types with subtype conformant profiles (see 4.6). Named access types have predefined equality operators; anonymous access types do not, but they can use the predefined equality operators for universal_access (see 4.5.2).
34.a/2
Reason: {AI95-00230-01} Anonymous access types can use the universal access equality operators declared in Standard, while named access types cannot for compatibility reasons. By not having equality operators for anonymous access types, we eliminate the need to specify exactly where the predefined operators for anonymous access types would be defined, as well as the need for an implementer to insert an implicit declaration for "=", etc. at the appropriate place in their symbol table. Note that ":=", 'Access, and ".all" are defined. 
35
93  The object or subprogram designated by an access value can be named with a dereference, either an explicit_dereference or an implicit_dereference. See 4.1.
36
94  A call through the dereference of an access-to-subprogram value is never a dispatching call. 
36.a
Proof: See 3.9.2.
37/2
95  {AI95-00254-01} The Access attribute for subprograms and parameters of an anonymous access-to-subprogram type may together be used to implement “downward closures” — that is, to pass a more-nested subprogram as a parameter to a less-nested subprogram, as might be appropriate for an iterator abstraction or numerical integration. Downward closures can also be implemented using generic formal subprograms (see 12.6). Note that Unchecked_Access is not allowed for subprograms.
38
96  Note that using an access-to-class-wide tagged type with a dispatching operation is a potentially more structured alternative to using an access-to-subprogram type.
39
97  An implementation may consider two access-to-subprogram values to be unequal, even though they designate the same subprogram. This might be because one points directly to the subprogram, while the other points to a special prologue that performs an Elaboration_Check and then jumps to the subprogram. See 4.5.2.
39.a
Ramification: If equality of access-to-subprogram values is important to the logic of a program, a reference to the Access attribute of a subprogram should be evaluated only once and stored in a global constant for subsequent use and equality comparison.

Examples

40
Example of use of the Access attribute: 
41
Martha : Person_Name := new Person(F);       -- see 3.10.1
Cars   : array (1..2) of aliased Car;
   ...
Martha.Vehicle := Cars(1)'Access;
George.Vehicle := Cars(2)'Access;

Extensions to Ada 83

41.a
We no longer make things like 'Last and ".component" (basic) operations of an access type that need to be "declared" somewhere. Instead, implicit dereference in a prefix takes care of them all. This means that there should never be a case when X.all'Last is legal while X'Last is not. See AI83-00154.

Incompatibilities With Ada 95

41.b/2
{AI95-00363-01} Aliased variables are not necessarily constrained in Ada 2005 (see 3.6). Therefore, a subcomponent of an aliased variable may disappear or change shape, and taking 'Access of such a subcomponent thus is illegal, while the same operation would have been legal in Ada 95. Note that most allocated objects are still constrained by their initial value (see 4.8), and thus legality of 'Access didn't change for them. For example: 
41.c/2
type T1 (D1 : Boolean := False) is
   record
      case D1 is
         when False =>
            C1 : aliased Integer;
         when True =>
            null;
      end case;
   end record;
type Acc_Int is access all Integer;
41.d/2
A_T : aliased T1;
Ptr : Acc_Int := A_T.C1'Access; -- Illegal in Ada 2005, legal in Ada 95
A_T := (D1 => True);            -- Raised Constraint_Error in Ada 95, but does not
                                -- in Ada 2005, so Ptr would become invalid when this
                                -- is assigned (thus Ptr is illegal).
41.e/2
{AI95-00363-01} If a discriminated full type has a partial view (private type) that is constrained, we do not allow 'Access on objects to create a value of an object of an access-to-unconstrained type. Ada 95 allowed this attribute and various access subtypes, requiring that the heap object be constrained and thus making details of the implementation of the private type visible to the client of the private type. See 4.8 for more on this topic.
41.f/2
{AI95-00229-01} {AI95-00254-01} Amendment Correction: Taking 'Access of a subprogram declared in a generic unit in the body of that generic is no longer allowed. Such references can easily be used to create dangling pointers, as Legality Rules are not rechecked in instance bodies. At the same time, the rules were loosened a bit where that is harmless, and also to allow any routine to be passed to an access parameter of an access-to-subprogram type. The now illegal uses of 'Access can almost always be moved to the private part of the generic unit, where they are still legal (and rechecked upon instantiation for possibly dangling pointers). 

Extensions to Ada 95

41.g/2
{8652/0010} {AI95-00127-01} Corrigendum: Access attributes of objects of class-wide types can be used as the controlling parameter in a dispatching calls (see 3.9.2). This was an oversight in Ada 95.
41.h/2
{AI95-00235-01} Amendment Correction: The type of the prefix can now be used in resolving Access attributes. This allows more uses of the Access attribute to resolve. For example: 
41.i/2
type Int_Ptr is access all Integer;
type Float_Ptr is access all Float;
41.j/2
function Zap (Val : Int_Ptr) return Float;
function Zap (Val : Float_Ptr) return Float;
41.k/2
Value : aliased Integer := 10;
41.l/2
Result1 : Float := Zap (Value'access); -- Ambiguous in Ada 95; resolves in Ada 2005.
Result2 : Float := Zap (Int_Ptr'(Value'access)); -- Resolves in Ada 95 and Ada 2005.
41.m/2
This change is upward compatible; any expression that does not resolve by the new rules would have failed a Legality Rule.

Wording Changes from Ada 95

41.n/2
{AI95-00162-01} Adjusted the wording to reflect the fact that expressions and function calls are masters.
41.o/2
{AI95-00230-01} {AI95-00254-01} {AI95-00318-02} {AI95-00385-01} {AI95-00416-01} Defined the accessibility of the various new kinds and uses of anonymous access types. 

Incompatibilities With Ada 2005

41.p/3
{AI05-0008-1} Correction: Simplified the description of when a discriminant-dependent component is allowed as the prefix of 'Access to when the object is known to be constrained. This fixes a confusion as to whether a subcomponent of an object that is not certain to be constrained can be used as a prefix of 'Access. The fix introduces an incompatibility, as the rule did not apply in Ada 95 if the prefix was a constant; but it now applies no matter what kind of object is involved. The incompatibility is not too bad, since most kinds of constants are known to be constrained.
41.q/3
{AI05-0041-1} Correction: Corrected the checks for the constrainedness of the prefix of the Access attribute so that assume-the-worst is used in generic bodies. This may make some programs illegal, but those programs were at risk having objects disappear while valid access values still pointed at them. 

Extensions to Ada 2005

41.r/3
{AI05-0082-1} Correction: Eliminated the static accessibility definition for generic formal types, as the actual can be more or less nested than the generic itself. This allows programs that were illegal for Ada 95 and for Ada 2005.
41.s/3
{AI05-0148-1} {AI05-0253-1} Eliminate the static accessibility definition for stand-alone objects of anonymous access-to-object types. This allows such objects to be used as temporaries without causing accessibility problems. 

Wording Changes from Ada 2005

41.t/3
{AI05-0014-1} Correction: Corrected the rules so that the accessibility of the object designated by an access object is that of the access type, even when no dereference is given. The accessibility was not specified in the past. This correction applies to both Ada 95 and Ada 2005.
41.u/3
{AI05-0024-1} Correction: Corrected accessibility rules for access discriminants so that no cases are omitted.
41.v/3
{AI05-0051-1} {AI05-0234-1} {AI05-0235-1} {AI05-0284-1} Correction: Corrected accessibility rules for anonymous access return types and access discriminants in return statements.
41.w/3
{AI05-0066-1} Correction: Changed coextension rules so that coextensions that belong to an anonymous object are transfered to the ultimate object.
41.x/3
{AI05-0142-4} {AI05-0188-1} {AI05-0235-1} Defined the accessibility of explicitly aliased parameters (see 6.1) and conditional_expressions (see 4.5.7).
41.y/3
{AI05-0234-1} Correction: Defined the term “master of the call” to simplify other wording, especially that for the accessibility checks associated with return statements and explicitly aliased parameters.
41.z/3
{AI05-0270-1} Correction: Defined the (omitted) accessibility level of null values when those are passed as the actual of an access-to-object parameter.

Incompatibilities With Ada 2012

41.aa/4
{AI12-0027-1} Corrigendum: Defined the accessibility of a value conversion, so that it is treated like an aggregate built at the point of the conversion. This was previously unspecified, so this change might be incompatible if an Ada implementation treated the accessibility of such conversions as that of the operand type; in that case, previous legal conversions probably will become illegal as the lifetime of the conversion is very short. However, code that could tell this difference is fairly rare (taking 'Access of a component of a result of a type conversion), code depending on this accessibility was not portable, and such code could have created an immediately dangling pointer if the conversion actually made a copy (which is necessary in some instances). 

Wording Changes from Ada 2012

41.bb/4
{AI12-0067-1} Corrigendum: Corrected so that it is clear that explicitly aliased parameters in procedures have the same accessibility as other parameters. Only explicitly aliased parameters in functions are special.
41.cc/4
{AI12-0070-1} Corrigendum: The accessibility of an anonymous access type of an extended_return_statement is defined here rather than in 6.5 so that all accessibility rules are here.
41.dd/4
{AI12-0089-1} Corrigendum: Corrected a number of rules so that they clearly apply to generic functions as well as functions. (Remember, a generic function is not a function.)
41.ee/4
{AI12-0095-1} Corrigendum: Moved the assume the worst rule about constrainedness of the prefix of attribute Access to 12.5.1, as a number of places in the Standard need this rule.
41.ff/4
{AI12-0157-1} Corrigendum: Ensured that the statically deeper relationship applies within the return expression of an expression function. (Dynamic properties apply by equivalence, but static properties are handled separately.)
41.gg/5
{AI12-0156-1} Added text to define the accessibility of anonymous access types declaring a loop parameter. 

Contents   Index   References   Search   Previous   Next 
Ada-Europe Ada 2005 and 2012 Editions sponsored in part by Ada-Europe