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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Initialization and Finalization of limited object "returned" by a
  function
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <ed41ec55-1c33-4ea0-95db-01a89103d70a@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <41b794ec-26b0-485e-a959-580a5b877a3b@f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <8e09c20d-172e-42a2-b2ff-994863893523@h12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <wcczl3fgxum.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <ff4735cf-c7d7-420d-b17d-a53576e8a5d5@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <wccocju1o56.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:54:42 +0100
Message-ID: <jk97b2c81itt$.1h9s6uejsnxcu.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Feb 2010 10:54:35 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 359a87a4.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=82BjQm3jWK`J00P1S40fZgMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk:GSbV?nbK2b[6LHn;2LCVn[<mhadbfdUk64DZK9YO=9lCLi5ScEkT?f
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9192
Date: 2010-02-13T10:54:35+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:15:17 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
> 
>> On 12 f�v, 00:24, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>> Well, I don't find it "graceful" that single-element positional
>>> aggregates are not allowed. �And zero-element ones. �I think
>>> it's just bad language design.
>> It seems you are suggesting the ambiguity should be resolved
>> semantically. Why not :)
> 
> No, it should be syntactic.  And it should be more obvious
> than counting the number of expressions between "(" and ")".
> 
> Aggregates should use "[" and "]", so there's no confusion.

Nope, the mathematical notation for a tuple is as in Ada (a,b,c,...), so
should it be. I see no problem in having it ambiguous (overloaded).

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de