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 10.50.79.201 with SMTP id l9mr2319010igx.4.1386381346402;
        Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:55:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.182.251.134 with SMTP id zk6mr575obc.38.1386381346339; Fri,
 06 Dec 2013 17:55:46 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.bbs-scene.org!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!bm17no17371524qab.0!news-out.google.com!p7ni11420qat.0!nntp.google.com!bm17no17371519qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:55:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <l7tr79$oc8$1@loke.gir.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=75.161.11.227;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.161.11.227
References: <lypppaj9jo.fsf@pushface.org>
 <c95e7c9c-6c3b-472b-ac5e-d70538bfc41a@googlegroups.com>
 <l7tr79$oc8$1@loke.gir.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c97e9d8a-118a-4080-9c22-945b0629fe07@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Renaming vs assignment to constant
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 01:55:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:17888
Date: 2013-12-06T17:55:46-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, December 6, 2013 5:47:37 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> <adambeneschan> wrote in message 
> 
> >(Technically, I think Time renames an anonymous object 
> >created by the compiler
> >to hold the function result, although it seems like incorrect English to 
> >talk about "renaming"
> >something that didn't have a name in the first place.)
> 
> Be glad that we didn't introduce named anonymous access types. :-) [We 
> seriously considered that, to allow named types with dynamic accessibility 
> and the special anonymous access-to-subprogram rules, but decided it was 
> just too weird.]

That could actually be quite useful in very specific cases; especially since only anonymous access types can be used in discriminants to parametrize [types] on non-scalar values.

But it would likely make accessibility checks worse for that little increase in functionality.