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: 103376,2e2db8edf2656165 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 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Constructing an object Date: 01 Oct 2005 10:13:16 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <05u%e.31514$176.27928@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 1128175996 28108 192.74.137.71 (1 Oct 2005 14:13:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:13:16 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5323 Date: 2005-10-01T10:13:16-04:00 List-Id: Tapio Kelloniemi writes: >...If this fails > and the parent method is not called at run time, Program_Error would > be raised. I don't think this is a big problem since in most cases missing > parent method call can be identified like missing return statement. The rules about return statements probably should be static: Every path through the function must have a return statement or a raise statement. Instead, we have: There must be at least one return statement (never mind that it might be bogus, or might be skipped). Plus a run-time check. The rule you propose about calling the parent could be static, too: exactly one call on every path (not inside a loop). - Bob