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,a00006d3c4735d70
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-23 06:01:14 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: wojtek@power.com.pl (Wojtek Narczynski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions
Date: 23 Jan 2004 06:01:13 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <5ad0dd8a.0401230601.65ce0a77@posting.google.com>
References: <wccptdsg3fw.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <mailman.18.1073691501.279.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.111.211.178
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1074866474 7126 127.0.0.1 (23 Jan 2004 14:01:14
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:01:14 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4713
Date: 2004-01-23T06:01:13-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello,

I don't follow, and I would like to, because I find [IN] OUT params
for functions very useful. Could you please elaborate on that a bit
more?

> And only one seems still valid: it is about
> complex expressions where a function call may be used as an actual argument
> for another function. I believe that that objection will be covered by the
> following 3rd rule for IN OUT parameters for functions:
> 
> 3) in a function call, an actual argument that corresponds to IN OUT formal
>    parameter must be a variable, and must be preceeded by the keyword VAR.
> 
> For example:
> 
>   X := Random(var Y);
> 
> With this rule any confusion becomes improbable, and readability flourishes.
> 

Looks like you are proposing a new keyword, which is likely to have
been used as variable name. This rarely goes in.

Regards,
Wojtek


PS. When I last raised this issue, Randy Buckhard was kind enough to
explain it to me in this post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=31&thl=1052791649,1052608147,1051351022,1051243512,1051879196,1051837965,1051735064,1051655015,1051488994,1051348161,1051239613,1051695835&seekm=5ad0dd8a.0307120438.6aac89b5%40posting.google.com#link34

And asked wether we "havd to discuss this AGAIN?" 

:-)