Re: anonymous access type

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:05:01 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
> 
>> Then, as long as "in out" makes sens beside of "out", then "in" do as
>> well (would seems strange if there was "in out", "out" and no "in").
> 
> Do you find it strange that we don't have:
> 
>     X : constant Integer := 123;
>     Y : variable Integer := 456; -- Not Ada!
> 
Strange is that it is not

                   --  Everything is not Ada!
   X : in Integer := 123;
   Y : in out Integer := 456;
   Z : out Integer; -- I can leave it uninitialized for a while

in = immutable, requires explicit initialization [unless controlled?]
in out = mutable, requires explicit initialization ...
out = mutable, no explicit initialization required

BTW, it is not to late to introduce this, since it would be compatible to
the present stuff:

   A : T ... <=>  A : out T  + warning
   B : constant T ...  <=>  B : in T ...  + warning

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