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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d1df6bc3799debed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: blaak@mda.ca (Ray Blaak)
Subject: Re: Syntax for tagged record types (was Re: Not intended for use in
 medical,)
Date: 1997/05/27
Message-ID: <5mesm7$j1c@freud.mda.ca>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 244256621
References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com>
 <33828299.2A3@world.std.com> <mheaney-ya023680002005972314260001@news.ni.net
 <mheaney-ya023680002105972302430001@news.ni.net> <EALJpp.HnH@world.std.com>
 <33850721.49BF@sprintmail.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680002305970103110001@news.ni.net>
 <JSA.97May23142418@alexandria>
 <mheaney-ya023680002305972133010001@news.ni.net>
Organization: Macdonald Dettwiler & Associates
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) writes:

>But I'm trying to avoid using any heap.  If I have to allocate an object,
>I'd rather it go on the stack.  Limitedness forces me to put the object on
>the heap.  Why?  It's just a syntactic quirk of the language (the confusion
>of assignment and initialization) that prevents me from initializing a
>limited object during its elaboration.  If we could eliminate those times
>when a limited object must be put on the heap, then there would be less
>motivation for a garbage collector.

This might be tedious, but you can get limited types on the stack via function
parameters:

declare
  procedure Doit (To_Me : in out Some_Limited_Type) is
  begin
    blah blah
  end Doit;
begin
  Doit(To_Me => My_Constructor ("foobar"));
end;

Cheers,
Ray Blaak
blaak@mda.ca