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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ce0ea7d497db907
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: anonymous access type
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <0a9f7a86-e8f6-41d4-ba0f-1f61ca323be5@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: <d1fb109a-13d6-4884-9e71-304a58c46e62@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<wcck574x2r7.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <01fc8d33-ebe0-4104-a817-60e1dc6142e3@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
	<wccocwgdn8i.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.91.74.149
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1236275403 19473 127.0.0.1 (5 Mar 2009 17:50:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:50:03 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.91.74.149;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4947
Date: 2009-03-05T09:50:03-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 5 mar, 16:05, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> Do you find it strange that we don't have:
>
> =A0 =A0 X : constant Integer :=3D 123;
> =A0 =A0 Y : variable Integer :=3D 456; -- Not Ada!
>
> ?
> - Bob

Well done, you've got a clever point indeed.

Perhaps the reason why I did not miss is beceause it does not belong
to the same side. When I see in/out on parameters, I see it from the
external user point of view (e.g. I'm looking at it as a user who
would like make a reference to it), while when I see your exemple, I
see it from the inner point of view (e.g. I'm inside a procedure/
function).

You know what ? I oftenly miss something else : beside of the
formal_parameter_selector_name [ARM2005 6.4/5], I would enjoy in/out
hints at the call statement, just to make invokation instances more
clear when a procedure can modifiy its parameters. It it not always
easy to state it in the procedure's name or in the parameter's name.

But perhaps I'm a bit mad (may be the "explicit" concept is becoming a
kind of hard drug)