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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.224.130.195 with SMTP id u3mr36287868qas.1.1367858854965;
 Mon, 06 May 2013 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.1.2 with SMTP id 2mr867596igi.6.1367858854751; Mon, 06
 May 2013 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.11.MISMATCH!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!m7no2826135qam.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni0qax.0!nntp.google.com!m7no2826126qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CDAD9640.2D9ED%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
References: <7704abab-86f2-4edc-ad4b-b3d4e70004fb@googlegroups.com>
 <UYadnS4eOq5gCB7MnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <op.wwiascfvule2fv@cardamome>
 <op.wwibdpw7ule2fv@cardamome> <km1h9d$k5k$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <aumqbiFf76eU1@mid.individual.net>
 <op.wwlyp5ymule2fv@cardamome> <CDAC1492.2D8D2%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <19a6badd-ed0f-4023-9100-b9ab653a7f23@googlegroups.com>
 <CDAD9640.2D9ED%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7d34787f-9965-42bc-b847-6ccbbf473f6a@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Ada 2012: In-out parameters for functions
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 16:47:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Received-Bytes: 2193
Date: 2013-05-06T09:47:34-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, May 6, 2013 9:17:52 AM UTC-7, Bill Findlay wrote:

> 
> Oh, I think I do understand.
> 
> > This isn't a declaration.
> 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> ...

> > Allowing mode declarations in the call would serve two purposes:
> 
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> You seem to be somewhat inconsistent here.

No, just suffering from caffeine deficiency syndrome.  Of course I didn't mean "declarations" in the last case.  Change this to "mode specifications", or "mode keywords", or something like that.  I just typed the wrong word.  

    Allowing mode keywords in the call would serve two purposes: [etc...]

It does not declare the parameter mode.

                             -- Adam