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: a07f3367d7,57f8540942f8e060
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Initialization and Finalization of limited object "returned" by a
 function
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:44:21 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <hl2896$hme$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <ed41ec55-1c33-4ea0-95db-01a89103d70a@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <wcceikrx0o1.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <d1d2586a-2f70-491a-8a12-01abae4ab6f5@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1265935463 18126 69.95.181.76 (12 Feb 2010 00:44:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:44:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9136
Date: 2010-02-11T18:44:21-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message 
news:d1d2586a-2f70-491a-8a12-01abae4ab6f5@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
...
> Yes, I believe that's right, and it's spelled out clearly in the RM,
> in sections 7.6(17.1/3-17.11/3 and especially 17.7/3), 6.5(5.8/3),
> 6.5(23/2), 7.6(4), and 3.10.2(10.1/2).

Whether Adam was being sarastic or not, note that this semantics was totally 
rewritten after Amendment 1 was finished. And Adam is reading the new, much 
clearer text (that's relative, of course); the old text left so many 
questions unanswered that we gave up and started over. (Bob did much of the 
heavy lifting on that.)

Summary: He's looking at the draft Ada 2012 standard and not the Ada 2005 
one. Ada compilers are supposed to follow the new wording (it is a Binding 
Interpretation -- essentially a bug fix to the Standard), but there is no 
reason to assume that they do.

                      Randy.