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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8522260ffbf09d84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-05 03:30:13 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!jussieu.fr!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail
From: Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problem With Self-Referential Access-to-Subprogram Type
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:27:22 +0000
Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or
Message-ID: <mailman.278.1068031675.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
References: <c8f570aa.0311030858.5425fc0d@posting.google.com>
	<80teqv099lspc5d4osf2gmu7cld46i0lvb@4ax.com>
	<c8f570aa.0311040552.79e3ba7c@posting.google.com>
	<s6cfqvc415sh3312knehvpd9bic80pmdia@4ax.com>
	<mailman.270.1067957851.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
	<20chqvglnrae8njr0011cfg3a8hc82je7m@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1068031675 88858 80.67.180.195 (5 Nov 2003
 11:27:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:27:55 +0000 (UTC)
To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Return-Path: <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
In-Reply-To: <20chqvglnrae8njr0011cfg3a8hc82je7m@4ax.com>
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2003 11:27:17.0059 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[C49A1930:01C3A38F]
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org
X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup
	<comp.lang.ada.ada-france.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
List-Help: <mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=subscribe>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2072
Date: 2003-11-05T11:27:22+00:00

On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 08:31, Dmitry A.Kazakov wrote:
> >> Yes, there is a difference. Technically, for an out parameter the
> >> compiler should still know the object constraints.

> >Only at runtime. Consider Ada.Text_IO.Get (Item : out String). What
> >constraints is the compiler knowing here?

> It knows that there are bounds which cannot be changed. If Item were
> of String (1..5) the compiler would probably choose another way of
> parameter passing than for String (<>) with the consequence that the
> stack frame would be different.

Irrelevant. This applies to return types just as well.

The original poster has a very good question--which has found no real
answer yet. My guess is it comes down to the hardware-orientedness of
Ada. I was surprised the *first* form compiled.