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!news1.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!nntp.abs.net!news.maxwell.syr.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: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:25:35 -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>
 <H4ydndUFyuAmTUTcRVn-3A@megapath.net> <$xgF7TJy$z4V@eisner.encompasserve.org>
Subject: Re: Return_By_Reference or Return_By_Copy (GNAT bug?)
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:27:09 -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: <HeydnRk3xLJtuEbcRVn-og@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-DrgH75aQ5FphcGkoi2ltdfhwoqWJjYfZ4oCjqkSrR+v3LqhIPqE329UQ5j2XPhSSI0p0xpIz49Xgfsu!YX44oZp6k8u+MvdNuUgOq4yzK7HgYIdUwJayv0BeKCEbJn138R50R8pdURWGn3wt/lq/7VIoU64V
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:7447
Date: 2005-01-04T17:27:09-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:$xgF7TJy$z4V@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> >> 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).
>
> Even though nothing in that sample says protected ?

It's nothing to do with protected; the rules for all functions returning
*limited* types have changed. (Both to make constructor functions possible,
and to make limited interfaces be near universal.) The incompatibility is
fairly rare (such functions are rarely useful in Ada 95), and the workaround
is easy -- with one possible exception: functions returning limited private
types. (Those seem more common.) Note, however, that such a function, while
legal in Ada 95, probably would raise Program_Error if instantiated with a
really limited type. So we're just making a run-time problem into a
compile-time one: that is, detecting an error earlier.

                            Randy.