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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,68536605ede13a20
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.190.71 with SMTP id go7mr3302926pbc.8.1324428676346;
        Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:51:16 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni46053pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Simon Belmont <sbelmont700@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT - return by anonymous access
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <95f3b0fc-af24-4ace-afc9-227e8893ea99@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <784c67eb-a542-41b0-b23d-fca1234e56b2@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
 <jcoidj$lpr$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <b896b012-1f49-494c-a585-3d37a7c0965a@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <jcr551$2jq$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.218.138.255
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1324428674 11490 127.0.0.1 (21 Dec 2011 00:51:14
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:51:14 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.218.138.255;
 posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2011-12-20T16:44:35-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Dec 20, 6:18=A0pm, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Personally, I'd just avoid anonymous access types, but I'm not going to g=
o
> so far as to recommend that (there are things that are hard to do any oth=
er
> way).
>

It is my understanding that Ada05 has done away with 'return-by-
reference' in favor of 'return-by-anonymous-access', which would lead
me to believe that you would *have* to use them if you want to return
an allocated limited type.  Personally I am suspect of this method, as
it exposes the access value to the nefarious shenanigans other code
could potentially try (hence the original code that was testing ways
of protecting the value inside an object).  Are there other ways of
doing this that aren't so...dubious?