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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,799e6e37c90ca633
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eva_remove_this_ns@evans.pgh.pa.us (Arthur Evans Jr)
Subject: Re: Future Ada language revisions?
Date: 1998/09/28
Message-ID: <eva_remove_this_ns-2809980910030001@ppp4.s9.pgh.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395605881
References: <6um7on$db5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998Sep27.181539.1@eisner>
Organization: Ada Consulting
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <6um7on$db5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bpr5549@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> PS: In case anyone is wondering, my main peeve is the restriction on
> out mode function parameters, which I just don't understand, even when
> I'm trying to open minded. I have yet to hear a good defense of this
> restriction, so if anyone has one, I'm all ears, errr, eyes.

and in article <1998Sep27.181539.1@eisner>,
Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote:

> On a more pragmatic note, what do you feel has changed about the world
> since 1995 to make people change their minds on this issue?  There is
> no sense wasting resources to debate an issue when those with a vote
> have chosen (twice) to let people use procedures rather than functions
> to solve this need.

When this issue was debated during the Ada-9X design process, several of
us came out strongly in favor of permitting out parameters in functions,
at least those with pragma interface C if not elsewhere; we lost.  It
seems to me that it's quite in order for contributors to cla to offer
reasoned objections to this -- or any -- Ada-9X design decision.  After
all, there will surely be an Ada-0X design some time.

Art Evans