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,c80e6f742e73478f
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.mv.net!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ensuring postconditions in the face of exceptions
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:04:41 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcctysgnicm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <820d96c0-5d67-4b8c-8c5b-811ca4f1127e@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
 <4b9a098b$0$2339$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi>
 <3696058c-235f-4d58-87be-74172ca0248a@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <hndhls$3ns$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <hnf018$nab$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wcc7hpgckyy.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <hnmt1l$phn$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wcciq8wxpkv.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <341a6a47-cb89-4ec3-a030-8f580bcb4a55@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1268769869 32497 192.74.137.71 (16 Mar 2010 20:04:29
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:04:29 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zgsG+29kU2E2femnH3CUFW2eVos=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9602
Date: 2010-03-16T16:04:41-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:

> On Mar 16, 8:18�am, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > Repeat after me: "limited" is a property of a view! It's not constant for a
>> > particular type! That's a common mistake that even those of us on the ARG
>> > make from time-to-time.
>>
>> I don't understand why the definition of "by reference" is subtly
>> different from the definition of "immutably limited".
>
> Well, for one thing, the language defines what types are "immutably
> limited", but it doesn't completely define which types are "by
> reference"---the implementation decides that in some cases (6.2(11)).

I mean the term "by-reference type", which is (portably) defined by
the RM.  These are the types that are required to be passed by
reference.

You're right that there are some other types where the compiler
gets to decide -- but I wasn't talking about those.

- Bob