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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4608b6f4718e680f
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr5247668pbc.5.1336624119541;
        Wed, 09 May 2012 21:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni8637pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: ytomino <aghia05@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problem in "X (1).Re := X (1).Re + 1"
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 21:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <16249910.1154.1336624012153.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbyy9>
References: <13177506.38.1336222539273.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbtg6>
 <21452734.731.1336405064187.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv35>
 <5749033.1275.1336416838264.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbchd7>
 <10294366.7.1336426132700.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngg23>
 <jo9s26$scj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <5209872.2691.1336497260879.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlq12>
 <30097103.0.1336555778034.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcow8>
 <jof3r1$475$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.8.128.51
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1336624119 9689 127.0.0.1 (10 May 2012 04:28:39
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 04:28:39 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <jof3r1$475$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.8.128.51;
 posting-account=Mi71UQoAAACnFhXo1NVxPlurinchtkIj
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-05-09T21:26:52-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:58:04 AM UTC+9, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> This reminds me of something I forgot: The beauty of 
> Constant_Reference/Reference in the standard containers is that there cannot 
> be a dangling pointer (assuming no Unchecked programming is involved). These 
> are tampering events so long as the pointer still exists, and thus is it 
> impossible to modify the container (attempts to do so will raise 
> Program_Error).

I agree, generally.

Only in the cases of my and Adam's sample code, we have hoped that they work through with reference-counting or no reference-counting.
So any exceptions are unsuitable.