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: 103376,92d1af21ade61406 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-06 07:19:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Problems with 'class, help anyone? Date: 6 Nov 2002 07:19:45 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0211060719.210d21bd@posting.google.com> References: <3DBE2593.9080800@worldnet.att.net> <3DBF9437.8090408@worldnet.att.net> <3DC74F23.80308@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1036595985 5954 127.0.0.1 (6 Nov 2002 15:19:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Nov 2002 15:19:45 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30459 Date: 2002-11-06T15:19:45+00:00 List-Id: Pascal Obry wrote in message news:... > Well, as Stephen, I think "in" should always be there. This is also part of my > style guide. With a nice formatting it reads very well: > > procedure Call > (P1 : in Integer; > P2 : in out Integer; > P4 : out Integer; > P3 : access Integer); I used to feel that way too. However, a couple of years ago Robert Dewar mananged to convince me that it should not not be put in functions, as its essentially a redundancy there ("out" isn't allowed). So now my personal style guide reads the same as yours, with an exception for functions, which should not have any modes on their parameters (unless "access" is used).