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: 103376,799e6e37c90ca633 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewarr@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Future Ada language revisions? Date: 1998/09/28 Message-ID: <6uocoh$iue$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 395650932 References: <6um7on$db5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998Sep27.181539.1@eisner> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x1.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.73.133.253 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Sep 28 16:16:18 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.02 (OS/2; I) Date: 1998-09-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , eva_remove_this_ns@evans.pgh.pa.us (Arthur Evans Jr) wrote: > When this issue was debated during the Ada-9X design process, several of > us came out strongly in favor of permitting out parameters in functions, > at least those with pragma interface C if not elsewhere; we lost. It > seems to me that it's quite in order for contributors to cla to offer > reasoned objections to this -- or any -- Ada-9X design decision. After > all, there will surely be an Ada-0X design some time. Well sure, but before you offer reasoned objections, take the effort to consult the archives. This is one issue that has been discussed to death in the past, so there is no point in reopening the discussion unless someone has something new to add! -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum