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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0452dbe16ac0df4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: ObjectAda vs Gnat -- bugs
Date: 1997/05/18
Message-ID: <JSA.97May18174232@alexandria>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 243029518
Distribution: world
References: <5lf6ka$nbg@service.polymtl.ca> <dewar.863746153@merv>
 <osk9kz481b.fsf@ted.vigra.com> <dewar.863817322@merv> <337E5357.7FBA@bix.com>
Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <337E5357.7FBA@bix.com> Tom Moran <tmoran@bix.com> writes:

> I'm a little confused by this renaming of function return values.  If T
> is a limited type and F is a function returning T, then I understand one
> can:
>   X:T renames F(...);
> and one cannot
>   X:T := F(...);
> Is that correct?

Yes.


> If T is not limited, then what are the differences between
>   X : T renames F(...);
>   Y : T := F(...);

X is constant, Y is not.  OTOH, if you said Y : constant T := F(...),
I'm not sure there is a difference...

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com