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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-07 11:04:45 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!peernews3.colt.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:04:44 -0600
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:04:43 -0500
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Clause "with and use"
References: <uekwr4u1k.fsf@wanadoo.fr> <slrnbq9qti.qu.randhol+valid for reply
 from news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no> <3FA50083.10709@noplace.com>
 <slrnbqcpv6.2io.randhol+valid for reply from news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3FA777E9.4030605@noplace.com> <atRpb.673$143.30323@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <bebbba07.0311051108.a65b963@posting.google.com>
 <m365hyh65o.fsf@niflheim.malonet>
 <bebbba07.0311051910.4913df78@posting.google.com>
 <bod0mk$1cg6bn$2@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <bebbba07.0311061052.772a095@posting.google.com>
 <boe9es$ep5$1@hercules.btinternet.com> <TMadnZEmI4tMeDeiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>
 <bofg2u$72b$1@titan.btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <bofg2u$72b$1@titan.btinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <kO6dnVFlLM5RcTaiRVn-tg@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.214.193
X-Trace: 
 sv3-Xn1069xNy9t/DbI1Oy+wf1mvJ4PyAFiib5SYHw1kPxeCXsXuHead0CbHCE9BI8vSiuFaM2r1BhoLHTF!yIoe/mW4Xo3TiU1CSHINbGFAOb2S5q099R+Ls/VEhOZKaGbQIG2fXXgKEJWxOQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2224
Date: 2003-11-07T14:04:43-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Dowie wrote:

> Yes, it's also a "Work Item" so maybe there will be too much trouble
> in implementing it - but I was really just trying to point out that the
> ARG _is_ thinking about this sort of problem but doing it in an Ada!

Oh, I think it definitely will happen for functions returning limited 
objects--definitely useful for constructors.  The trick is to figure out 
how to allow compilers to take advantage of the potential optimization 
in the non-limited case while not requiring the "optimization" which may 
cost more than it helps.

-- 
                                           Robert I. Eachus

100% Ada, no bugs--the only way to create software.