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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Dynamic Address Clauses??
Message-ID: <124@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jun 88 04:13:03 GMT
References: <8806161353.AA17815@linus.MENET>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8806161353.AA17815@linus.MENET> dee%linus@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (David E. Emery) writes:
>Here's a very legitimate use for a dynamic address clause: C often
>returns addresses of objects (becaues C functions cannot return
>structures).

(a) That isn't true; since the days of V7 UNIX C has been able to return
    records.  (There are known problems with the implementation used by
    some compilers, but the facility is present in the language.)  struct
    results and struct assignment are in the draft ANSI standard.

(b) In any case, why not simply return an access value?  Are ADA access
    values required to carry around more information than C pointers?