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,bf564bb3bcde0817
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Renaming versus initialisation
Date: 27 Sep 2005 20:00:56 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccbr2ekqmf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <xzi_e.29736$NQ.3159@reader1.news.jippii.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1127865656 23826 192.74.137.71 (28 Sep 2005 00:00:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:00:56 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5210
Date: 2005-09-27T20:00:56-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Tapio Kelloniemi <invalid@localhost.localdomain.com> writes:

> V1 : T := F;
> V2 : T renames F;
> 
> I'd like to see an explanation of the effect of an object renaming
> declaration versus variable declaration and initialisation, when the object
> being renamed is a return value of a function. Many thanks for it.

They are pretty similar.  Differences: V2 is a constant, but V1 is a
variable.  In Ada 95, V2 works for limited types, but V1 does not.
The rules about limited types are relaxed in Ada 2005.

- Bob