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: 2004-01-24 07:21:39 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: 24 Jan 2004 07:21:38 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <5ad0dd8a.0401240721.7682f2e1@posting.google.com>
References: <5ad0dd8a.0401230601.65ce0a77@posting.google.com>
 <mailman.12.1074885016.2270.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 1074957699 10916 127.0.0.1 (24 Jan 2004 15:21:39
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:21:39 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4771
Date: 2004-01-24T07:21:38-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello,

> I don't get clear - which point should be elaborated? 
> (for me all that looks pretty straightforward, 
> complete and unambiguous -:)

This worry is unclear to me:

>> 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 don't see how adding IN OUT arguments could make things worse in
this matter. A function can have side effects on global state, it can
have side effects on its IN paramerters (by using the Rosen trick). I
just don't see how documenting those side effects in the function
specification could make things worse.


> (...) But nevertheless, we programmers not only have 
> a right to discuss the language issues that disturb us,
> but even must do that.

I guess :-)


Regards,
Wojtek