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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cef1e23795181e0c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Matthew Heaney Subject: Re: Alternate to Unchecked_Conversion - Portable? Date: 1999/02/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 448678235 Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net References: <36d05e39.0@news.pacifier.com> <36d2638e.6427631@nntp.concentric.net> <7avplr$jl5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7b2j34$drp$3@plug.news.pipex.net> <7b3fk2$lnk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7b5rv9$k9g$3@plug.news.pipex.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:31:22 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Nick Roberts" writes: > robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote in message > <7b3fk2$lnk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > [...] > | OO : TT renames UC (O); > > > Is this legal? Yes, because there is a subtle difference between what a function returns in Ada95 vs Ada83. Functions now return "constant objects," whereas before, they returned "values."