Re: Initialization and Finalization of limited object "returned" by a function

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 12 fév, 00:08, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> Extended return statements are important in the limited case,
> because you often want to say something like "Result.X := ...;".
> And as you discovered, aggregates aren't allowed for protected
> or task types (which was probably a language design mistake).
I agree with this in some way, as protected are largely handled like
records. Further more, when you've made a syntactic while writing the
declaration or the body of a protected, then GNAT, most of times
points the error using the term "record" in the message (by the way,
with respect to the way the language is defined, I feel this kind of
message is not well suited, these may be disturbing for some users).

On the other hand, why would someone want to initialize any thing in a
protected ? The private part being only visible to the protected it-
self, this would not make sense. Well, sure it would be useful to
return a protected where a class-wide type is expected as the return
result : the language requires an initialization here, thus the idea
of an aggregate for protected and task in this purpose, in order to be
able to initialize this class-wide type. But this should be an empty
aggregate. What is needed, is not really an aggregate, but something
to initialize an entity of class-wide type.

Better than an aggregate for protected and task, there should be
something acting like an empty aggregate, which would be to be used as
an initializer for protected and task only.