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,e859f774bbb3dfb3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: another way to shoot yourself in the foot?
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: 
 <54157920-377a-441b-9b0b-f0c4f9ddffec@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
 <54435596-5e7f-4686-a2b7-1e22d7c4b186@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wccr6arzz3c.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <HaX6k.217614$yE1.198719@attbi_s21>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:56:10 +0200
Message-ID: <483ugmvkl2ea.1hrqsq7ru4t1x$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jun 2008 10:56:10 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 273907d0.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=;Ml51^kBg4V@>[RYkFXOIP4IUK<Cl32<Q4Fo<]lROoRQFl8W>\BH3YR\_I^hlCSGCZDNcfSJ;bb[UIRnRBaCd<M^PLbeb6^UB6\2c7fYJh;coY
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:796
Date: 2008-06-21T10:56:10+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:37:11 GMT, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:

> Robert A Duff wrote:
>> 
>> Build-in-place is determined by the type, not by the
>> syntactic form of the return statement.
> 
> I'm not sure I see any point to the extended return statement.

I agree, it was introduced solely for dealing with limited-valued
functions. IMO there should be no such thing as "limited-valued" at all.
In-place initialization should be handled by proper constructors.

> Wouldn't it have 
> been clearer and simpler to have done something like
> 
>     Result : return T;

Result : T renames return;
    -- Would be IMO better, semantically it is a renaming.

>     ...
> begin
>     ...
>     return Result;

Why this? With your syntax it is clear what is going to be returned:

function Foo return T is
   Result : return T;  -- This will be the result
begin
   ...
end Foo; -- Returns Result, obviously, as declared

> with a rule that only 1 "return variable" may be in scope at a time?

As well as that there may be no return statements returning something
else...

One problem with your proposal is:

function Foo (...) return String is
begin
   declare
      Result : return String (1..200);  -- Going to return 200 characters
   begin
      Result (1) := 'a'; -- Here the result has to be allocated
      if HALT (x) then
         return;  -- Return from Foo with Result
      end if;
   end;  -- Drop already allocated and initialized result
   return "Hallo!";  -- Return a completely different thing
end Foo;

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