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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,901038687c38f61c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!14bb18d8!not-for-mail
Sender: mheaney@MHEANEYX200
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Idiom for a class and an object in Ada
References: <M3Ocd.237$5i5.72@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
 <mailman.25.1098102395.10401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <FH_cd.575$KJ6.64@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <u4qkrtgn2.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <s78dd.2345$ta5.833@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
 <x7v4qkqrlr1.fsf@smaug.pushface.org> <uoeixvols.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <woEdd.2702$%h1.1164@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <uvfd4derl.fsf@earthlink.net> <1dljnq136n1j1.2oxluar9ofho.dlg@40tude.net>
From: Matthew Heaney <matthewjheaney@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <u1xfsutnu.fsf@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:45:09 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.185.133.124
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1098362709 64.185.133.124 (Thu,
 21 Oct 2004 05:45:09 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:45:09 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5578
Date: 2004-10-21T12:45:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:46:39 GMT, Matthew Heaney wrote:
> 
> > I don't understand this comment.  How else do you dynamically create
> > instances of T?
> 
> Why should they be created dynamically (heap)? Heap vs. stack is a
> matter of object's scope. It should have little or no impact on the
> design of the type. If it has then probably because of language
> deficiency, as in C++, or, yes, in Ada where there was no way to
> initialize limited objects. That will be corrected soon, I hope.


My point was that there is *no* difference between Ada95 and C++ here.
My reasons for writing the code as I did (that is, writing a factory
function that returns a pointer) had nothing to do with language.



> For Marin's case the objects are not dynamic. So if read-only objects
> would suffice, one can just use functions returning limited objects:

Finally, someone else sees the light...