Re: Should weak counted reference be able to be strengthened?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:39:25 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:kywrzxvibzmw$.1h82z2coiciqh$.dlg@40tude.net...

>> Why do you need accessors? For Ada's crazy implicit dereference?
> 
> It's not crazy, it's brilliant. ;-) There's really no other way to make 
> things both easy-to-use and safe.

Of course there is a way and without either accessor types or implicit
dereference.

[...] 
> The real question is whether there is a real need to have a long-lived 
> Strong_Reference. I would argue against such a thing, but I don't think it 
> is clearly an open-and-shut case.

Sure, the only purpose of strong references is to be long-lived.

>>> The only way to actually reach a referred object is by dereferencing the
>>> access discriminant of an Accessor value. The strong reference inside
>>> Accessor objects ensure that the referred object will outlive the
>>> Accessor object.
>>
>> It is much simpler to return a plain access type:
>>
>>   function Ptr (Ref : Strong_Reference) return not null access T['Class];
> 
> Sure, but now you have an extra function with no real purpose. If you use 
> the accessor form, you don't need any way at all to get the pointer, you 
> always have access to it.

Accessor is a whole type without purpose and all functions it has are
without purpose as well.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de