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: 103376,5e40665f885c514
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Modest proposal, 1 of 3
Date: 1996/11/22
Message-ID: <E1A28q.Dyv@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 198079877
references: <572q86$g7m@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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