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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	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: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: anonymous access type
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:52:16 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <e9b1c30a-eca2-4452-944a-ac12b55067a8@p20g2000yqi.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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.91.74.149
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1236300736 10032 127.0.0.1 (6 Mar 2009 00:52:16
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 00:52:16 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.91.74.149;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3982
Date: 2009-03-05T16:52:16-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 5 mar, 19:35, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> I think Ada 79 or some earlier proposal had that. =A0For named parameter
> associations, instead of the =3D> syntax we've gotten used to:
>
> =A0 =A0Proc (Param =3D> Expression);
>
> the syntax was
>
> =A0 =A0Proc (Param :=3D Expression);
>
> for IN parameters;
>
> =A0 =A0Proc (Param =3D: Variable);
>
> for OUT parameters, and
>
> =A0 =A0Proc (Param :=3D: Variable);
>
> for IN OUT parameters. =A0At least that's what I recall from way back
> when. =A0I suppose the language could still allow
>
> =A0 =A0Proc (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). =A0The implementation effort for compiler maintainers
> would be small, I believe.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- 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 ?

Have a nice night