Re: anonymous access type

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

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 => syntax we've gotten used to:
>
>    Proc (Param => Expression);
>
> the syntax was
>
>    Proc (Param := Expression);
>
> for IN parameters;
>
>    Proc (Param =: Variable);
>
> for OUT parameters, and
>
>    Proc (Param :=: 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 <=> Variable)
>
> for IN OUT, but of course <= 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 :/=/:, while this
latter is clever as well
Is it possible to transmit it as a proposal ?
Where can I do it ?

Have a nice night