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: a07f3367d7,65b902127ca8a604
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Issue with GNAT GPL 2009 and GtkAda
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:31:20 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <h23eoh$fc2$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <4A414EBB.8060204@free.fr> <uk532lyzd.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <utz24lm2n.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <1avd65rn49abv$.krcxo2gdzb16$.dlg@40tude.net> <h20nuv$de4$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <10ym4hltpwd4n$.1hcayfi4xidg3.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1246051921 15746 69.95.181.76 (26 Jun 2009 21:32:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:32:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6652
Date: 2009-06-26T16:31:20-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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).

                                        Randy.