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: 103376,74166d5f7afa0c82
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:09:47 -0600
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: 
 <mailman.19.1104491242.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org><lvKdndhnk8OQWEjcRVn-iw@megapath.net>
 <mailman.21.1104616882.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Subject: Re: Return_By_Reference or Return_By_Copy (GNAT bug?)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:11:24 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
Message-ID: <H4ydndUFyuAmTUTcRVn-3A@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-fP4zvY036mDIxuEtvxnM7gD5xznnhpSHA/buFnIvz26EF+W5kH6Yko5o6GAkR0nk8D3zSjguMZhl7Ee!hyxDIXi2ORmtF8oUyXSbjt+B/lg+kDTqeQFqFtPx13WuBmxq6XiZfQeIuVdJGjOqRiKfhN8jASor
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.22
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7417
Date: 2005-01-03T17:11:24-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Duncan Sands" <baldrick@free.fr> wrote in message
news:mailman.21.1104616882.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org...
> I was playing around with return by reference to see if it is possible to
> get unserialized access to a protected variable using the Rosen trick (it
is,
> see example below, especially the protected object P in package C).  Will
this
> be illegal in Ada 2005?

Yes, it will.

...
...
> package body B is
>
>    The_A : A_Type;
>
>    function Get_The_A return A_Type is
>    begin
>       return The_A;

-- This return will be illegal in Ada 2005 (the return expression is not an
aggregate or function call).
-- Declare the function:
    function Get_The_A return access A_Type is
    begin
       return The_A'Access;
-- to do this in Ada 2005. (Note this makes it explicit what you're doing -
a good thing, IMHO.)

>    end;

...

> package body C is
>
>    protected body P is
>
>       function Get_A return A_Type is
>       begin
>          return P_A;

-- Similarly, this return will be illegal in Ada 2005.
--  (Can't return an object from a limited function, as that would require a
copy into the result object.)
-- Use the same workaround as above.

>       end Get_A;
>
>    end P;
>
> end;

...