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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Studying and Maintaining GNAT, Is There Any Interest in a New
 Group?
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 10:04:15 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <pmg5i0$rr7$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <d0ae2366-32a2-42ff-8750-4802bbcfd251@googlegroups.com>
 <309225242.556906218.575482.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
 <ec9cbd0c-51d4-4a55-a2b0-b6c6b96bb9fb@googlegroups.com>
 <ly4lfimepc.fsf@pushface.org>
 <b21b2991-a0b0-46ed-ba49-b5cbad1e9a98@googlegroups.com>
 <2145221813.556924687.162377.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
 <lysh30kv4l.fsf@pushface.org>
 <0001HW.213464550E84375C70000C7DB2CF@news.individual.net>
 <c647d0f6-7908-4e7e-8731-5364fa921d54@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc5zzqtels.fsf@TheWorld.com> <pmcgps$850$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <wccin3pqa1j.fsf@TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: IzvqdhUtDGKIMCldyDtZ+w.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54310
Date: 2018-09-02T10:04:15+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2018-09-01 21:42, Robert A Duff wrote:
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> 
>> Note that every one of these renames was illegal in Ada 83. Someone thought
>> that it was important to allow Ren1 in Ada 95, and that led to all of these
>> bizarre cases.
> 
> I think it was mostly accidental. We needed to say that the result of
> a function call is an object (as opposed to a value, as in Ada 83),
> because it needs to get finalized. This caused renaming of
> function calls to become legal, which we viewed as harmless
> and sometimes useful.

I think distinction object vs. value is a wrong. Renaming should apply 
to named entities, e.g. *named* objects. Renaming anonymous things makes 
no sense, IMO.

> We didn't take the further step of making all the other cases
> you mentioned legal. Perhaps we should have, just for uniformity.

Uniformly counterintuitive. If an expression to be named, that 
intuitively should have semantics of a call. E.g.

    Line : String renames Get_Line (File);
begin
    loop
       Put_Line (Line); -- Dumping all the file
    end loop;
exception
    when End_Error => -- From Put_Line, not from declaration!
       null;

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de