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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Build-in-place semantics?  (Was: Ada design bug or GNAT bug?)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:02:26 +0200
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <87bnfsfanx.fsf_-_@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
References: <yo94phsbcvht$.1bktwe2qoqntt$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<mm58b5$9k0$1@loke.gir.dk> <4lrj5zz2u2z.u8x9cf7xzic6.dlg@40tude.net>
	<mm9h84$5n8$1@loke.gir.dk>
	<d4629c07-4005-4bd3-8fa6-85d088fb83c9@googlegroups.com>
	<58f64fa9-7d0b-44dd-870c-77d9afcb82c4@googlegroups.com>
	<mn4jj1$n50$3@loke.gir.dk>
	<4228c0ea-837d-42a0-b2a8-a98d8d30f820@googlegroups.com>
	<mn7jl5$p6l$1@loke.gir.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.57.77.80.mobile.3.dk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1436007747 24344 109.57.77.80 (4 Jul 2015 11:02:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:02:27 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+dYw0Dkgw2ArcjdnUczTPlmtk8w=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:26608
Date: 2015-07-04T13:02:26+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Randy Brukardt wrote:

> Probably not, build-in-place semantics isn't practical for all
> non-limited types (think normal assignment, can't build-in-place
> because if an exception occurs the original value has to be intact).

A very sensible requirement, but wouldn't it be nice ...

I suppose that compilers are allowed to use build-in-place when
initialising non-limited objects?  (But that would of course in practice
mean that you had two different compiled versions of every function.)

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
»Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the
 programming language.«                    -- Preben Randhol