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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c411:: with SMTP id y17mr9497304ioa.265.1559346902108;
        Fri, 31 May 2019 16:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6f01:: with SMTP id n1mr2907852otq.276.1559346901953;
 Fri, 31 May 2019 16:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!i64no700614iti.0!news-out.google.com!l135ni374itc.0!nntp.google.com!i64no700609iti.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 16:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qcrmap$j58$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=185.22.143.229;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 185.22.143.229
References: <qcri52$1tn$1@dont-email.me> <qcrmap$j58$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <aec08768-ac61-4f6d-83b6-e3e07d9ced41@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: References vs access types
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 23:55:02 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1944
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3434649292
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56428
Date: 2019-05-31T16:55:01-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Am Freitag, 31. Mai 2019 18:55:57 UTC+2 schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov:
> My preferences list would be:
> 
> #1 - Never, visually ugly, semantically questionable, lacking 
> transparent access to the target object and technically not a reference 
> at all, plus unstable with GNAT compilers
> 
> #2 - Construction of new stand-alone objects (frequently class-wide), 
> implementation-dependent stuff
> 
> #3 - Access to a component of an existing object
> 
> As for hidden traps, only #3 is safe upon inheritance, if primitive 
> operation and thus covariant.

I'm quite opposed to Dmitry.

I admit that #1 is clumsy. But see Gem 123 to learn how this syntax may be improved with some aspects.

(Compiler problems are never an argument to avoid some feature forever.)