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: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ica2ph@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de (Peter Hermann) Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard Date: 1996/08/30 Message-ID: <506ceh$25o4@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177403543 references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Are there proposals for the project name of the new standard similar to Ada9X, such as Ada200X, Ada2000, Ada0X, etc. ? I am expecting the new standard will come out in 2005 with a much smaller delta as it was from 83 to 95. Van Snyder (vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote: : 1. Allow the "mode" of an "access to procedure" or "access to function" : formal argument to be "limited". Interpret this to mean "you can only : use this argument to access the subprogram, or pass it as an actual : argument to a formal argument of `limited' mode." This would prevent : one from storing the "pointer" into an "access to procedure" variable, : and thereby allow safely passing internal procedures as actual arguments. In Ada95, I would help myself (if really needed) by setting the internal state of the calling environment such that an inexpected call from outside would report or raise an exception. : 2. Allow an "out" "mode" for variables in specification parts, or fields : in records. The interpretation is that any one can read the variables, : but only procedures in (or the initialization part of) the body of the : package can write them, or pass them to other than "in" mode formal : arguments in different packages. Given this, one can safely expose : variables containing values one wishes to expose, but to which one does : not want to permit willy-nilly changes, without the need to write a : one-line function. "out" is not (yet ;-) my taste. I see the designers ponder over syntactic optima, e.g. "half constant" :-) , "not constant" within the body in order to cancel a constant in the spec, "protected", "half private" :-) , "read_only", or last but not least "out". The problem with out is the perspective of view :-( . Certainly it is a good idea to use existing keywords. I welcome ideas for the new standard which really should be gathered somewhere. but where? The AALC mechanism was a sponsored activity, AFAIK. -- Peter Hermann Tel:+49-711-685-3611 Fax:3758 ph@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de Pfaffenwaldring 27, 70569 Stuttgart Uni Computeranwendungen Team Ada: "C'mon people let the world begin" (Paul McCartney)