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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,cced0e2ac94722f3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.117.197 with SMTP id kg5mr1847066pbb.5.1325867697288;
        Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:34:57 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni144684pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada2012 : Expression functions and extended return statements
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 08:33:38 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <9d181c23-2d64-4947-a6f7-64e0dcda357b@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
References: <26f343ea-d694-4089-b594-f32b471db3a4@m4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1325867618 30622 127.0.0.1 (6 Jan 2012 16:33:38
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 16:33:38 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
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; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-01-06T08:33:38-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jan 6, 12:45=A0am, Martin <mar...@thedowies.com> wrote:

> Also, on the topic of extended return statements...
>
> What's the rational for having to explicitly repeat the return type?
> Seems rather redundant to my eyes. I wouldn't have minded:
>
> function Bar return Some_Type is
> begin
> =A0 =A0return Result : <> do
> =A0 =A0 =A0 -- something to initialise 'Result'
> =A0 =A0end return;
> end Bar;
>
> or even
>
> function Bar return Some_Type is
> begin
> =A0 =A0return Result do
> =A0 =A0 =A0 -- something to initialise 'Result'
> =A0 =A0end return;
> end Bar;
>
> In this case, 'Result' can't be anything other than of type
> 'Some_Type' can it?

Yes, it can.  If Some_Type is a class-wide type, Result's type must be
a specific type.  If Some_Type is, say, an unconstrained array type,
Result's type must be a constrained subtype.

                             -- Adam