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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f28dd1d63a9466b2,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-11 02:12:46 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!erinews.ericsson.se!etlghh
From: etlghh@garbo.ericsson.se (Geoffrey Hollingworth)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Syntax question
Date: 11 Mar 1995 10:12:06 GMT
Organization: Ericsson
Message-ID: <3jrt1m$9rk@erinews.ericsson.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garbo300.ericsson.se
Summary: Request on background on "=>" parameter binder
Keywords: help syntax
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #16 (NOV)
Date: 1995-03-11T10:12:06+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hi

I am currently researching into real time languages and hope
you ada experts can explain something to me.  I apologise for
my lack of knowledge in ada.
When binding formal parameters with actual parameters the '=>'
operator is used, irrespective of whether the formal parameter
is declared as IN, INOUT or OUT.  Is there a reason for this ?
If I proposed an alternative syntax where "=>" indicated the FP
was an IN parameter, "<=" to indicate an OUT parameter and "<=>"
to indicate an INOUT.
Then the caller of the procedure/function would have explicitly
had to understand to direction of the parameters and at the same
time increased the readability of his/her code.
Is there a fundamental flaw in this line of thinking ?
Does ada manage this problem via a different mechanism ?

Any information, historical or otherwise, would be a great help
to me and greatly appreciated.

thanks

/geoff