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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!gatech!hubcap!billwolf
From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Collective response to := messages
Message-ID: <3732@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 4 Dec 88 20:30:21 GMT
References: <4123@enea.se>
Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP
Reply-To: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From article <4123@enea.se>, by sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog):
> Oh, someone thought that an user-defined ":=" should apply to parameter
> passing as well. This is of course impossible. In that case ":=" should
> define how the parameters were passed to itself. A true circular definition!

    Recall the discussion.  The rule that the "old" version of assign
    would apply throughout any function named ":=", including parameter
    passing, handles this contingency.