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: a07f3367d7,1488a75895e849b
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.190.193 with SMTP id dj1mr9563947qab.6.1360608816473;
        Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:53:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.49.116.115 with SMTP id jv19mr1064523qeb.21.1360608816451;
 Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 k2ni21154qap.0!nntp.google.com!p13no8687088qai.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:53:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <lywquercwe.fsf@pushface.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
References: <51192116$0$30527$703f8584@news.kpn.nl>
 <lywquercwe.fsf@pushface.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <eff6a8c1-f589-46b1-9a4e-d4d9a17d9e16@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Converting a C/C++ statement to Ada
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:53:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2013-02-11T10:53:36-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, February 11, 2013 9:14:25 AM UTC-8, Simon Wright wrote:
> "ldries46" writes:
>=20
> > Can anyone tell me the Ada equivalent for the following C/C++
> > statement
>=20
> > typedef void (*Apple) (Pair *two_side, pointer_type user_data,
> > Error_type *error);
>=20
> I think it's something like
>=20
>    type Apple is access procedure (two_side : access Pair;=20
>                                    user_data : ?;=20
>                                    error : access Error_type);
>=20
> but of course the parameters may well not need to be accesses.

Right.  Unless the C/C++ code actually does something with the pointer valu=
es themselves (such as copying two_side or error into some global pointer v=
ariable that gets used later), then they probably should not be accesses, b=
ut rather just "in Pair", "out Pair", or "in out Pair" (and similarly for E=
rror_type) depending on whether the Pair or its components are read, writte=
n, or both.

                             -- Adam