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: vsnyder@vanpcjpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Subject: Re: Future Ada language revisions?
Date: 1998/10/21
Message-ID: <70lquh$mrp@netline.jpl.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 403736737
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: vsnyder@vanpc (Van Snyder)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory - Pasadena CA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The reason that internal procedures can't be used for actual arguments seems
to revolve around the possibility that their "addresses" might be copied,
because when they appear as formal arguments they're "access to procedure"
with no additional restrictions.  Right?

Could we have another annotation for access formal arguments that prohibits
using them for anything other than actual arguments, and dereferencing them?
Say, "limited"?  This would loosen up the restrictions on actual arguments
that are procedures substantially.

-- 
What fraction of Americans believe   |  Van Snyder
Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?  |  vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov