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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!sei.cmu.edu!firth
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Parameter modes
Message-ID: <7748@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 88 14:06:14 GMT
References: <8811151407.AA10227@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu
Reply-To: firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8811151407.AA10227@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> CONTR22@NOSC-TECR.ARPA (Dale Gaumer) writes:

>     I would like to explore the possibility of using pass-by-reference for
>non-scalar parameters with mode "out" or "in out".
...
>     It seems to me that the LRM went to great lengths to make
>pass-by-reference a legal implementation, for parameters of mode "out" or "in
>out", which are array or record types.

I can confirm, for what it's worth, that it was the conscious intent of
the language designers to permit non-scalar (and non-access) parameters
to be passed by either copy or reference, at the option of the implementor.

If there is anything currently in the RM that prohibits that, I'm not aware
of it; should you know of any such statement, please bring it to the
attention of the Ada Board, so that they can fix it.