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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b47b15fda2aeb0b2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jvl@ocsystems.com (Joel VanLaven)
Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada Standard
Date: 1996/09/04
Message-ID: <1996Sep4.192955.9380@ocsystems.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178498003
references: <50aao3$3r88@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <dewar.841590835@schonberg>
 <JSA.96Sep3152930@alexandria>
organization: OC Systems, Inc.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jon S Anthony (jsa@alexandria) wrote:
: procedure P ( X : Xt );

: or if you want to be explicit:

: procedure P ( X : in Xt );

: This is basically the correct equivalent to C++

: void p (const xt& x)

  While this is a minor point, it happens to be one that I am currently
involved with and so couldn't resist mentioning :)
  If Xt is a tagged type (ie. the c++ "type" is a class)

void p (const xt& x)

actually seems to be modeled more accurately by

procedure P ( X : in Xt'class );

  If xt is not a class then the simpler translation is correct, after all
if xt is not a class then

void p (const xt& x)

is the same as

void p (xt x)

except for possibly effieciency.  In the Ada world our compilers are
smart enough to decide on the most efficient way to do this sort of
parameter passing without our error-prone help :)
-- 
-- Joel VanLaven