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,e859f774bbb3dfb3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!panix!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: another way to shoot yourself in the foot?
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:37:41 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccod5ttdd6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <54157920-377a-441b-9b0b-f0c4f9ddffec@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
 <54435596-5e7f-4686-a2b7-1e22d7c4b186@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wccr6arzz3c.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <HaX6k.217614$yE1.198719@attbi_s21>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1214167061 10963 192.74.137.71 (22 Jun 2008 20:37:41
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:37:41 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eSIhUFVctXrNWcVHz/loc05UFcE=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:806
Date: 2008-06-22T16:37:41-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> writes:

> Robert A Duff wrote:
>> Build-in-place is determined by the type, not by the
>> syntactic form of the return statement.
>
> I'm not sure I see any point to the extended return statement. Wouldn't
> it have been clearer and simpler to have done something like
>
>    Result : return T;
>    ...
> begin
>    ...
>    return Result;
>
> with a rule that only 1 "return variable" may be in scope at a time?

I actually advocated something along those lines.
I think it has (probably-solvable) problems, too.
If you're curious, look up the relevant AI.

As Dmitry pointed out, with this idea, there's no need for the "return
Result;".

- Bob