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: 103376,75a8a3664688f227 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-14 12:47:54 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sjc-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Parameter Modes, In In Out and Out In-Reply-To: <3A6140CB.63EE9B8F@acm.org> Message-ID: References: <93cagm$c1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93e4e6$ucg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93encq$brm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93f6ar$m44$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93flab$2mh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93fqau$6m2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93h9mo$bbm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93il87$iqo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93k6dv$qt6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93ko49$auq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93modu$36k$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93n2co$alq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93q39q$oq0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93q6cd$r3k$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A6140CB.63EE9B8F@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:45:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.184.139.136 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: sjc-read.news.verio.net 979505152 206.184.139.136 (Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:45:52 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:45:52 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4007 Date: 2001-01-14T20:45:52+00:00 List-Id: On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > Brian Rogoff wrote: > > > > I also think that some form of downward funarg would be a lot more useful > > in day-to-day programming than multimethods, though I guess I wouldn't > > call Ada crippled or hobbled. I'd just say that it's an annoyance that I > > wish wasn't there. (Sorry, couldn't resist :) > > There is a basic consistency issue here. Ada does things safely by > default, but always allows the developer to get around the rules when > appropriate by using something named Unchecked_XXX. In the area of > access-to-object values, this is 'Unchecked_Access. However, in the area > of passing an access-to-subprogram value to a subprogram, there is no > way to get around the rules. This is an unfortunate deviation from the > basic philosophy. I appreciate the "safe by default" aspect of Ada. I'd prefer that downward funargs be integrated safely into Ada, *not* by loosening Unchecked_Access or providing a GNAT style Unrestricted_Access attribute. Robert Duff had a safe downward funargs proposal which he has resubmitted. -- Brian