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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,223af7b95794ff28
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@baesystems.com>
Subject: Re: Get_Line vs Adasockets
Date: 2000/08/14
Message-ID: <39979E8D.558CF45A@baesystems.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 658033060
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8n6cbc$9ge$1@news.tpi.pl>
 <dale-978440.09065214082000@news-server>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 14 Aug 2000 08:20:46 GMT, stnp2927.stanmre.gecm.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-08-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Yeah, I thought that too for a minute, but on closer inspection, the code is a
procedure with a nested function (instance of unchecked_conversion)  and not a
package with a function being defined in it - so no 'return' statement required
(although allowed ;-).

Perhaps one of the language lawyers could comment on the use of
unchecked_conversion to (I assume) convert from an address to an access type? I
thought that was the purpose of the standard package
System.Address_To_Access_Conversions?

Dale Stanbrough wrote:
> 
> 
> ...and i can't see a return statement in your function.
> 
> Dale

-- 
The views expressed here are personal and not those of BAE Systems.