Re: Why is the destructor called multiple times after I declare an object?

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>]

On 13.01.16 20:59, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> Sure, some object is always returned and every object is always same to itself. This is not sufficient to define useful "in-place". In my view a definition must have the place known at the caller's context. E.g. to have the object:
>
> 1. Allocated at a specific machine address
> 2. Allocated by an allocator in the specific memory pool
> 3. Allocated as a specific component of a container object
> 4. Allocated as a parent of a derived type object
>
> The problem of returned object is that it conflates allocation with initialization.

If Ada will have a way for the caller to express the placement of new objects
to be constructed in situ by functions, might we then go back to just
return-by-reference in the hope of abandoning "return-by-access"?

I.e., in this case, the caller could request that a limited object
be placed, e.g., on the stack, after having been initialized by the function.
Or that it become a named component of some other object.

-- 
"HOTDOGS ARE NOT BOOKMARKS"
Springfield Elementary teaching staff