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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,cb04cee6116c8ced
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Package's private parts and protected types
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:34:28 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <4e959c35-34d1-49fb-b1eb-5b298e42610f@z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References: <7ff3810f-3ee3-4f39-a54c-933ad7d0655c@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
	<e89844fd-9f16-40a1-821a-177d4f02caf4@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<1v2la97s2yyvd.1rcy0ana8mver.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3bb38996-47f7-4f30-8255-f011501404b5@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<wccwrynkc7p.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <ecdbf9ec-ac29-428f-a658-8951fff34bb0@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<wcc3a1ao497.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.91.74.81
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265744068 17600 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2010 19:34:28
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:34:28 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.91.74.81;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9047
Date: 2010-02-09T11:34:28-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 9 f=E9v, 15:47, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> I agree that it's good to avoid heap management when possible.
> But why can't you declare local variables of type My_Interface'Class,
> initialized with build-in-place function calls?
>
> - Bob

Synchronized-and-the-like interface types are limited, so the built-in-
place is indeed really built-in-place (no kind of conversion allowed
at any stage). The initializer function have to return a class wide
and return it using an extended return statement which is required to
return the same exact type/subtype as the one function returns.

This way of doing thing is not compatible with the implementation-
hiding requirement, as it would require the implementation type to be
exposed in the public part, so that I could define a public function
returning this exact type.