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,f8a440310f7f2e02
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!8g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: christoph.grein@eurocopter.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Extended return question
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <e03e42c8-a5dc-4f26-a3b7-cb466857bfb9@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: <MrNoSpam-F95CC3.12114110072008@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
	<wccfxqh24ak.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <69940bd4-74f7-4b00-93d6-482c7394fcef@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
	<1pdpniur1w9sq$.1a9h7prydviae$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccabgpqmhu.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
	<1q2ekbsy00n1q.su55mffvj33u$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.156.44.178
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1215767177 10422 127.0.0.1 (11 Jul 2008 09:06:17
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:06:17 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.156.44.178;
	posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET
	CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 webwasher (Webwasher 6.7.0.3295)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1107
Date: 2008-07-11T02:06:17-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11 Jul., 09:39, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:43:09 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:
> > I don't see any problem here. =A0The "notion of limited type" is "do no=
t
> > copy". =A0In the example below, X is created, then destroyed, then anot=
her
> > X is created, and that becomes the result. =A0No copying.
>
> No, we cannot say that, because
>
> A) X is not created until the constructing function returns. There is jus=
t
> no X until that point. The question is *what* was created and destroyed? =
It
> is improperly typed, at least.
>
> B) On the other hand, if we considered X being created, destroyed and
> created again, then the name X would resolve into two different objects i=
n
> the same context. This would either violate the identity semantics of X o=
r
> be semantically equivalent to an assignment of X.

I view it this way:

There is a certain storage region where something (first X) is created
and then distroyed.

There is again a certain storage region (may be the same, may be not)
where the second X is created. Only when the function returns becomes
this storage region known a the final limited object. No copying.