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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.36.189.131 with SMTP id x125mr764328ite.37.1513646996139;
        Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:29:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.33.82 with SMTP id l18mr61480otd.6.1513646996058; Mon,
 18 Dec 2017 17:29:56 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.kjsl.com!usenet.stanford.edu!g80no116434itg.0!news-out.google.com!b73ni324ita.0!nntp.google.com!g80no116430itg.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:29:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p19fne$jr1$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=173.71.208.22;
 posting-account=QF6XPQoAAABce2NyPxxDAaKdAkN6RgAf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.208.22
References: <a94cf715-a4a4-42bb-8800-9bb6a8baf9ac@googlegroups.com>
 <p19fne$jr1$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <15a736cf-a981-4905-8f1a-837441cd60fe@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Return by reference
From: Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 01:29:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49532
Date: 2017-12-18T17:29:55-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 5:33:20 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Jere"  wrote in message 
> ...
> > I was wondering if Ada could take a step with it further
> > and provide a syntax for return by reference.
> 
> No. It doesn't semantically make sense as a stand-alone concept. We tried a 
> whole bunch of ideas on that line before giving up and adopting the implicit 
> dereference mechanism.
> 
>                            Randy.

And I think it was a good choice.  I was just seeing if there was a way that
the language could further increase the safety of the mechanism by fully
hiding the access type and making it more integrated into the language. It's
a fairly young feature of the language, so I was just seeing if that was
plausible.