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: a07f3367d7,57f8540942f8e060
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Initialization and Finalization of limited object "returned" by a
  function
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:52:06 +0000
Message-ID: <C79C7B26.136261%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: <ed41ec55-1c33-4ea0-95db-01a89103d70a@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <41b794ec-26b0-485e-a959-580a5b877a3b@f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <8e09c20d-172e-42a2-b2ff-994863893523@h12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <wcczl3fgxum.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <ff4735cf-c7d7-420d-b17d-a53576e8a5d5@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <wccocju1o56.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <jk97b2c81itt$.1h9s6uejsnxcu.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net G6ebL833J1IQQlGAd3d2iQA5Y/959VH9bh+hvsv0LYL4poUJIE
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uJqyNLzxbRAl/ISOcov2fflpck4=
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605
Thread-Topic: Initialization and Finalization of limited object "returned" by
 a  function
Thread-Index: AcqsxH3xEBnuqut18Emg0sXeJ4Zh7A==
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9197
Date: 2010-02-13T15:52:06+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 13/02/2010 09:54, in article jk97b2c81itt$.1h9s6uejsnxcu.dlg@40tude.net,
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:15:17 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
>> "Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
>> 
>>> On 12 f�v, 00:24, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, I don't find it "graceful" that single-element positional
>>>> aggregates are not allowed. �And zero-element ones. �I think
>>>> it's just bad language design.
>>> It seems you are suggesting the ambiguity should be resolved
>>> semantically. Why not :)
>> 
>> No, it should be syntactic.  And it should be more obvious
>> than counting the number of expressions between "(" and ")".
>> 
>> Aggregates should use "[" and "]", so there's no confusion.
> 
> Nope, the mathematical notation for a tuple is as in Ada (a,b,c,...), so
> should it be. I see no problem in having it ambiguous (overloaded).

<a,b,c, ...>, surely?

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk