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: 103376,9d303864ae4c70ad X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-10 04:21:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!news.belwue.de!LF.net!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions Date: 10 Apr 2004 13:11:40 +0200 Message-ID: <87y8p45bpv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> References: <87brm1pksa.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <87lll4ydj9.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: albireo.enyo.de 1081595500 31043 212.9.189.171 (10 Apr 2004 11:11:40 GMT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6945 Date: 2004-04-10T13:11:40+02:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > > Well, this is solution is obviously quite bad because "procedure" and > > "function" are now almost (but not quite) interchangeable. > > Isn't an access parameter almost interchangeable with an "in out" > parameter? No, it isn't. You can't obtain an access value for most objects. > Let me use your argument: what would be the difference between "function" > and "procedure" then? Its use. A procedure call is a statement, a function call is a name (and thus part of an expression). -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.