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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why is the destructor called multiple times after I declare an
 object?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:04:28 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <n77rmb$d0c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <293c58ac-4ebd-488a-abcc-b6e88811eec8@googlegroups.com>
 <n6v39b$efq$1@dont-email.me> <n70l9o$ecn$3@dont-email.me>
 <871t9ogevj.fsf@theworld.com> <n715oq$fae$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <n71epa$b1h$1@loke.gir.dk> <n72hag$bjq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <n73n7i$4es$1@loke.gir.dk> <n73pq5$p6o$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <wccbn8qz6r9.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <n75214$1ata$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <wccd1t5jwkz.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <n76aag$3qo$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Reply-To: nonlegitur@futureapps.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:01:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="b96887e80893c84a90c3007226ca0d1c";
	logging-data="13324"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XhZsrdf5O2GeM+2wbDu+ULpyzNTudBQQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
In-Reply-To: <n76aag$3qo$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s9sFm54kKBwpQh9XIAl2u5osfHw=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:29125
Date: 2016-01-14T11:04:28+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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