Re: Why constructing functions is a mess [was Language lawyer question: task activation

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov schrieb:

> A derived type works fine:
> 
>    type My_Plant is new Power_Plant with null record;
>    function Create return My_Plant is
>    begin
>       return (Power_Plant'(Create ("my plant")) with null record);
>    end Create;

> Now, the point is that this model of construction does not work with
> abstract types because of fundamental reasons. It is not (<>) which is
> broken, but the construction model.

OK, got your point, sorry for being so dense.
Should the following work for unconstrained abstract Power_Plant?
(some day, e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34507 )

  return (Power_Plant with null record);


Would you consider dropping a note on AI05-067 to the ARG list?
There is an not by Stephen W. Baird that mentions
(the possibility (or not) of) dispatching to abstract
subprograms in a related case (I think).