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: 103376,803df5f3f60558d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Uninitialized "out" parameters
Date: 1996/07/21
Message-ID: <Duwwqn.AD0@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169310014
references: <31EEACDA.64880EEB@sage.inel.gov>
 <gauthier-1907961215520001@164.81.60.62>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <gauthier-1907961215520001@164.81.60.62>,
Michel Gauthier <gauthier@unilim.fr> wrote:
>This problem is harmless here, but can lead to counterintuitive results when
>the type implies initialisation (records, controlled types, access types).
>Intuitively, the actual parameter should be Finalize'd prior to entering the
>subprogram, and re-Initialize'd as part of elaborating the declarative part
>of the subprogram ___Is it the behaviour that results from LRM ?___

No.  Controlled types are always passed by reference.  That is, the
formal is a view of the actual (not a copy of it).  So no finalization
takes place on parameter passing.

The original example used an integer.  The parameter passing rules are
different, depending on what sort of type you have.

- Bob