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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.224.130.195 with SMTP id u3mr35939839qas.1.1367853989166;
        Mon, 06 May 2013 08:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.129.116 with SMTP id nv20mr246234obb.10.1367853989098;
 Mon, 06 May 2013 08:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!m7no2792874qam.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni0qax.0!nntp.google.com!m7no2792870qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 08:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <aumqbiFf76eU1@mid.individual.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
References: <7704abab-86f2-4edc-ad4b-b3d4e70004fb@googlegroups.com>
 <UYadnS4eOq5gCB7MnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <op.wwiascfvule2fv@cardamome>
 <op.wwibdpw7ule2fv@cardamome> <km1h9d$k5k$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <aumqbiFf76eU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <42ab7a8e-78ec-4b41-bdca-3f785cc5d5ef@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Ada 2012: In-out parameters for functions
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 15:26:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:15373
Date: 2013-05-06T08:26:28-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 3:24:50 AM UTC-7, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 13-05-04 02:29 , Randy Brukardt wrote:
>=20

> How about reusing the mode keywords:
>=20
>    Proc (
>       In_Param  =3D> in A,
>       Out_Param =3D> out B,
>       In_Out_Param =3D> in out C);
>=20
> The mode keywords would be optional, of course, thus this extension
> would be upwards compatible with current Ada. Note that this syntax can
> be used with positional association calls, too:
>=20
>    Proc (in A, out B, in out C);
>=20
> An alternative, perhaps more English-like, would be to put the mode
> keywords in front of the formal parameter:
>=20
>    Proc (
>       in In_Param  =3D> A,
>       out Out_Param =3D> B,
>       in out In_Out_Param =3D> C);
>=20
> but I like the first form better, because its form and format are more
> familiar, especially when the "=3D>" are vertically aligned.

I checked my archive of Ada-Comment mail, and it seems we had this exact di=
scussion around March 2009.  It looks like I suggested one of the syntaxes =
you mentioned, and the people who commented afterward seemed to be split ab=
out evenly between those who like the idea and those who hated it.  (You co=
ntributed a comment too, on the "like" side.)  It doesn't look like this wa=
s ever turned into an AI or an AC, though; at least, I can't find it.  Bob =
Duff was the one who pointed out how Ada 79 handled it.

                          -- Adam