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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,65b902127ca8a604
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!feeder.erje.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Issue with GNAT GPL 2009 and GtkAda
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <4A414EBB.8060204@free.fr> <uk532lyzd.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <utz24lm2n.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <1avd65rn49abv$.krcxo2gdzb16$.dlg@40tude.net> <h20nuv$de4$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <10ym4hltpwd4n$.1hcayfi4xidg3.dlg@40tude.net> <h23eoh$fc2$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:53:28 +0200
Message-ID: <1br5vij9sqjvh$.d2dnxqta7qw4.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jun 2009 09:53:28 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 22e70d4a.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=3kK4S@[ZU68NTD<CL>55K=ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9hW8AT9f3U`9DNcfSJ;bb[5IRnRBaCd<M>;`C2n26M3m0dIRgcED:A8;
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6658
Date: 2009-06-27T09:53:28+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:31:20 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:10ym4hltpwd4n$.1hcayfi4xidg3.dlg@40tude.net...
> ...
>> The only purpose of
>>
>>   Ptr : access T := new T;
>>
>> I can guess is allocation of a large scoped object on the heap. It would be
>> better if there were a syntax for that, which does not involve access types.
> 
> I don't see the point. There is no language semantic reason not to simply 
> declare this object on the stack:
> 
>    O : T;
> 
> Any reason not to is based on the limitations of a particular 
> implementation. I don't see any good reason to pollute the language for that 
> reason (it would be better for the implementation to relax those limitations 
> if they are a problem for their customers).

Agreed.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de