From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Modest proposal, 1 of 3
Date: 1996/11/22
Date: 1996-11-22T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1A28q.Dyv@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 572q86$g7m@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov
In article <572q86$g7m@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Van Snyder <vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
...
>Allow the "limited" keyword as an argument-passing mode, similar to
>"in". ...
During the Ada 9X project, this idea was proposed by the language design
team (except that "limited" was a property of the access-to-procedure
type, rather than being a mode), for exactly the reasons you suggest.
It was rejected primarily because the implementers didn't think it was
all that "modest". This issue was discussed here at length some months
ago.
Note that limited access-to-object types would also be quite useful.
So where's numbers 2 and 3?
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-11-22 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-11-21 0:00 Modest proposal, 1 of 3 Van Snyder
1996-11-22 0:00 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
1996-11-26 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox