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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!hubcap!billwolf
From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Overloading of ":="
Message-ID: <3976@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 25 Dec 88 19:27:52 GMT
References: <4189@enea.se>
Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP
Reply-To: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From article <4189@enea.se>, by sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog):
> [Mats Weber and Erland Sommarskog rehash the argument about
>   assignment procedures having an "in out" parameter for the destination] 
> 
>   Now, WHY, is A of mode "in out" in the Assign procedure? If we had
> "out" only, nothing "erroneous" could occur. 

     Because the ASSIGN procedure needs to be able to DESTROY the old
     value; DESTROY procedures must read objects during the process
     of destroying them.  Please review the recent discussion rather
     than recreating it, unless there are new issues to be considered.