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-Thread: 103376,4ce0ea7d497db907
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: anonymous access type
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <cbd5056a-f453-4dea-ac88-fe6846951fdd@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
References: <d1fb109a-13d6-4884-9e71-304a58c46e62@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<wcck574x2r7.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <01fc8d33-ebe0-4104-a817-60e1dc6142e3@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
	<wccocwgdn8i.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <0a9f7a86-e8f6-41d4-ba0f-1f61ca323be5@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<532bc1c7-6939-4085-8e53-97c6f619899d@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
	<e9b1c30a-eca2-4452-944a-ac12b55067a8@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1236356727 29029 127.0.0.1 (6 Mar 2009 16:25:27
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:25:27 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
	posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12)
	Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4964
Date: 2009-03-06T08:25:26-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 5, 4:52 pm, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> On 5 mar, 19:35, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think Ada 79 or some earlier proposal had that.  For named parameter
> > associations, instead of the =3D> syntax we've gotten used to:
>
> >    Proc (Param =3D> Expression);
>
> > the syntax was
>
> >    Proc (Param :=3D Expression);
>
> > for IN parameters;
>
> >    Proc (Param =3D: Variable);
>
> > for OUT parameters, and
>
> >    Proc (Param :=3D: Variable);
>
> > for IN OUT parameters.  At least that's what I recall from way back
> > when.  I suppose the language could still allow
>
> >    Proc (Param <=3D> Variable)
>
> > for IN OUT, but of course <=3D has another use now so we couldn't use
> > that...
>
> > And I think that in Ada 79, this was only possible for named
> > associations, not positional ones.
>
> > I don't think your idea is a bad one, though, to allow (but not
> > require) IN|OUT|IN OUT keywords in front of actual parameters (named
> > or positional).  The implementation effort for compiler maintainers
> > would be small, I believe.
>
> >                               -- Adam
>
> I think I would prefer the in/out rather than the :/=3D/:, while this
> latter is clever as well
> Is it possible to transmit it as a proposal ?
> Where can I do it ?

Actually, I sent a proposal to Ada-Comment after I posted, and there's
been some discussion.  I didn't realize that Randy had already brought
up the idea recently in the context of a different issue (AI05-0144),
which arose because OUT and IN OUT parameters for functions are being
seriously discussed; that proposed feature means there's even more
need for a syntax like you mentioned, at least in my opinion (not
everybody agrees).  For future reference, look at
http://www.adaic.com/standards/articles/comment.html

                                -- Adam