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: 103376,22ab316b1096e177
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:08:37 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Tasks, Entries, and Variables of a Class-wide type
References: 
 <7e77bb8f-17b6-4d51-9946-ea825f726682@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <ckmpf7cxf86x$.123uob2jwdt0z$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3dcee4c7-9753-41a1-8181-6e7e363bfbe8@t13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <ian2kg$js8$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <vwll8mopf37z$.t3cpki2vjl05$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <vwll8mopf37z$.t3cpki2vjl05$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4ccf1e46$0$6972$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 01 Nov 2010 21:08:38 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 14747076.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=GXA<^LbZTH\\PS5Xo=M[RV4IUK<Cl32<Q4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[gN;^5BYMG0_BhmZ<nLOhK[E2?MTSm7@k[AfKJCIa>jfR
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16096
Date: 2010-11-01T21:08:38+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11/1/10 8:23 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:50:44 -0700, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/2010 08:30 AM, Shark8 wrote:
>>>
>>> Crap; you're right!
>>> While I certainly like the idea of having a task-construct within the
>>> language itself, I'm still quite new to using them in-practice.
>>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> Interestingly, your original problem does not exist if you use composition
>> rather than type extension.
>
> No, the original problem is that an object of unconstrained type cannot be
> returned from an entry point. That is independent on whether the constraint
> is the type tag, discriminant without a default, or array bounds.
>

One may, however, pass data indirectly, and return a pointer
or other designating value.

(Or have the task trigger the actions to be performed on
the new object without passing it around; instead, pass
the actions.)