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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,f8a440310f7f2e02 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Extended return question Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <69940bd4-74f7-4b00-93d6-482c7394fcef@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <1pdpniur1w9sq$.1a9h7prydviae$.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:39:50 +0200 Message-ID: <1q2ekbsy00n1q.su55mffvj33u$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jul 2008 09:39:51 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: c1559518.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=a;DSKg;^?UmfF8a^:6>b7e4IUK\BH3Yb4^Scn1J8k9iDNcfSJ;bb[eFCTGGVUmh?dLK[5LiR>kgb]MhATd6o5Dj X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1106 Date: 2008-07-11T09:39:51+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:43:09 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote: > I don't see any problem here. The "notion of limited type" is "do not > copy". In the example below, X is created, then destroyed, then another > X is created, and that becomes the result. No copying. No, we cannot say that, because A) X is not created until the constructing function returns. There is just no X until that point. The question is *what* was created and destroyed? It is improperly typed, at least. B) On the other hand, if we considered X being created, destroyed and created again, then the name X would resolve into two different objects in the same context. This would either violate the identity semantics of X or be semantically equivalent to an assignment of X. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de