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,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.litech.org!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!artemis.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.cc.rochester.edu!not-for-mail
From: Richard Edgar <rge21@pas.rochester.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Bounds Check Overhead
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 16:16:16 -0400
Organization: University of Rochester
Message-ID: <e57nm9$7br$1@mail.rochester.edu>
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4475DA61.3080001@comcast.net> <m2mzd569l9.fsf@grendel.local>
 <44762F55.4050106@cits1.stanford.edu> <87hd3d1472.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <1hfxsjh.t88mchrssv9cN%nospam@see.signature>
 <nXGdg.33893$4L1.2348@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
 <e57h7j$20n$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu> <m2irns5zil.fsf@grendel.local>
 <e57n33$3kb$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pulsar.pas.rochester.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: mail.rochester.edu 1148674569 7547 128.151.144.48 (26 May 2006
 20:16:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rochester.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 20:16:09 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Macintosh/20060308)
In-Reply-To: <e57n33$3kb$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4517 comp.lang.fortran:10316
Date: 2006-05-26T16:16:16-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Rich Townsend wrote:

> Yes. Without an explicit INTENT(), Fortran defaults to INTENT(inout) --
> and I guess Ada defaults to INTENT(in), which is 'safer', but could not
> be done in Fortran due to the requirement of backward compatibility.

Minor nitpick, but I thought that not declaring INTENT was _not_ the
same as INTENT(INOUT). Specifically, anything declared INOUT had to be
adjustable, even if it wasn't adjusted. Thus, it would not be legal to
pass a PARAMETER to an INOUT argument, but it would be legal to pass it
to an argument with no INTENT declared (Sorry for messing up the
standardese in this, but I hope my meaning is clear)?

Richard