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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9d303864ae4c70ad X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-09 15:48:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 17:48:33 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <107ea2hh8g2bsbb@corp.supernews.com> References: <87brm1pksa.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <5058369.11AmbRLujt@linux1.krischik.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6929 Date: 2004-04-09T17:48:33-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:c565si$2qlp6q$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de... > Martin Krischik wrote: > > See above. Have you heard of GNATs "pragma Pure_Function"? > > Yes, it is a very good thing. I'd like to see it in the standard and > moreover not as a pragma, but as a part of the syntax (in the contract). It > could be very useful, for example, to declare an abstract function as pure, > to force any implementation to conform. Even more useful would be to allow > pure functions in static expressions. The compiler could get an advantage > from knowing that a function is pure: I agree with all of this too. Also not going to happen. See AI-290, also voted "No Action". Randy.