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: 103376,31c63f07e48d5471 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-20 01:18:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: rod.chapman@praxis-cs.co.uk (Rod Chapman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada to 'C' parameter passing problem Date: 20 Feb 2003 01:18:34 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <1ec946d1.0302191836.743eab91@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.155.153.242 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1045732714 8591 127.0.0.1 (20 Feb 2003 09:18:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Feb 2003 09:18:34 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:34260 Date: 2003-02-20T09:18:34+00:00 List-Id: mheaney@on2.com (Matthew Heaney) wrote in message news:> That Ada doesn't allow you to specify inout mode for function > parameters is a deficiency of Ada... Wow! This reflects somewhat of a gulf between our respective views of language design! (Don't get me wrong, neither position is necessarily right or wrong, just different...) At the SPARK end of the spectrum functions calls are expressions which return a value and never have a side-effect. Procedure calls are statements which have side-effects - A rather significant _semantic_ difference! If you do prefer the ability to allow a function to modify its parameters, then it should at least be good enough to confess this to the outside-world as part of its specifiction. The current discussion for Ada0Y in AI231 (extending anonymous access parameters) is welcome here, especially from a static-analysis point of view. - Rod