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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,90108ed846e3f1bf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:13:09 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why constructing functions is a mess [was Language lawyer
 question:
 task activation
References: 
 <ccf8fc4b-80e3-4732-84e3-16c4e2d10c3d@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
  <rv6zobw6fror.csu22kh631qi$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <24bdd0df-9554-49de-9c5e-99572c9cdf34@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <d1d318e7-9cd8-4f28-9cc8-afa3752e711e@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <1v0f2pkso7p50.vein84avao5t.dlg@40tude.net>
 <499ede41$0$32665$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1lhxmo6l2ypux.bei2ffp1m3e$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <499f2c59$0$31868$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1vcaimc8kjj30$.kf3rsd670ebp$.dlg@40tude.net> <go9t07$lht$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1gxn72yzshp07$.6ytqydmmz37u.dlg@40tude.net>
 <49a92c29$0$32670$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1wzjy9pzbft1m.1lut7nszfkzmp$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <49a95a12$0$31347$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <p2ugsc0q86gs.1wau2yijrzj7t.dlg@40tude.net>
 <49a97231$0$30236$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1mjbcbequf1wz.1o3nwuz7oqteo.dlg@40tude.net>
 <49a984f6$0$30226$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <f7marceobkvv.gyibyusp603m$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <f7marceobkvv.gyibyusp603m$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <49ac0595$0$31344$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Mar 2009 17:13:09 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: f446a8b4.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=5i3f8>LC[@O6PJ?[X6JIXE4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbIT1UB;;G?DKE;9OJDO8_SKFNSZ1n^B98iJW6WIbMakRDC
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3866
Date: 2009-03-02T17:13:09+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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).