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,b47b15fda2aeb0b2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Re:Two ideas for the next Ada Standard
Date: 1996/09/03
Message-ID: <50idrp$qqb@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178284284
distribution: world
references: <50aao3$3r88@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <JSA.96Sep3152930@alexandria>
 <Dx5ywt.Jvn@world.std.com> <Dx5zH4.2zo@world.std.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
x-xxmessage-id: <AE52F8BD8B011035@sambar.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert A Duff writes:
"However, I don't think it's a big deal.  You can just use "in" and "in
 out" all the time, and use ".all" at the call site.  Two annoying things
 are: The syntax for ".all" is ugly -- I liked Pascal's "^".  And
 functions can't have "in out" params."

What was the original rationale for implicit dereferencing? I'm just
up to explaining it to our first year students - I find explaining why
ptr.record_field has the same syntax as rec.rec_field.

Dale