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,bd40601768eaf8fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mark Lundquist <mark@rational.com>
Subject: Re: Array of Variant Records Question...
Date: 1999/09/10
Message-ID: <37D96965.81045235@rational.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 523532519
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7r5vh3$imu1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com> <37d6a45c@news1.prserv.net>
 <eExB3.6$ZR.1146@news.wenet.net> <37d6ccb6@news1.prserv.net>
 <7r77i8$i08$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d7c116@news1.prserv.net>
 <7r8t21$ov5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d822a1@news1.prserv.net>
 <7r9r4u$fsc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Rational Software
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-09-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar wrote:

> In article <37d822a1@news1.prserv.net>,
>   "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> > To be able to modify an in-mode subprogram parameter.
> > Essentially, what ACT did to implement the function Random
> > in GNAT.
>
> That seems just *too* kludgy to me, and very implemention
> dependent, wouldn't it be better to just introduce in out
> and out parameters for functions (but we know that one won't
> fly ...)
>

Why would that be necessary, since functions already can have access
parameters?  OK, the actual must denote an aliased view...