Re: Build-in-place semantics? (Was: Ada design bug or GNAT bug?)

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

Jacob Sparre Andersen" <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote in message 
news:87bnfsfanx.fsf_-_@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk...
> Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
>> Probably not, build-in-place semantics isn't practical for all
>> non-limited types (think normal assignment, can't build-in-place
>> because if an exception occurs the original value has to be intact).
>
> A very sensible requirement, but wouldn't it be nice ...
>
> I suppose that compilers are allowed to use build-in-place when
> initialising non-limited objects?  (But that would of course in practice
> mean that you had two different compiled versions of every function.)

Yes, of course. It's not possible to write a program that can tell the 
difference. (Code inspection could tell, of course, but that's considered 
cheating - any code that gives the required semantics should be OK.)

One could avoid the assignment problem by introducing a temporary in just 
such cases, but that's essentially the same as not using build-in-place in 
the first place. One also could arrange to just use build-in-place for types 
that don't have the exception-on-assignment possibility (there are plenty of 
those).

                             Randy.