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,f3437064e1091fec X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-14 19:32:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What evil would happen? Date: 14 Jul 2003 19:32:33 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <5ad0dd8a.0307111151.4a08f95a@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.152.82.226 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1058236354 14247 127.0.0.1 (15 Jul 2003 02:32:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jul 2003 02:32:34 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40276 Date: 2003-07-15T02:32:34+00:00 List-Id: Randy Brukardt wrote: > > What would happen if a procedure could return a value like a function, > > or a function could accept an out parameter? >... >P.S. Do we have to discuss this AGAIN? Yes, for sure. Just because "there is enough opposition and no hope of consensus" is not a technical argument. And it isn't an argument at all outside of the ARG. Hyman Rosen wrote: >That's the price to be paid for continuing >to allow the mulish and senseless opposition >to keep its roadblock in place. I am not sure that this is "mulish and senseless" opposition, but the fact is that this is the silent opposition. There was outbreak of that discussion in Ada-Comment (past year, I think), and within that discussion I reviewed all arguments (against IN OUT parameters in functions), which was stated in 1993-1995, and which blocked this feature in Ada 95. But no one seemed interested in technical discussion: all participated ARG members simply stated their position - pro and contra. (Most interesting was Robert Dewar's position: he firmly stated that for all technical reasons IN OUT parameters for functions should be permitted, but nevertheless, he warned that he will vote against this feature, because this feature certainly will not gain consensus within ARG.) Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia