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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9d303864ae4c70ad X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-14 07:40:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!216.196.106.140!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:40:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:40:41 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions References: <87brm1pksa.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <5058369.11AmbRLujt@linux1.krischik.com> <107ea2hh8g2bsbb@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <107ea2hh8g2bsbb@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.90.114 X-Trace: sv3-5OctpR1rG7N8yD/jk7agol47htZjjijxWKwtr3wzyPkMrjO+Fj+SkKj9DXUId2QkEkV3U+126zteph/!lLvsPAt8UTyualbzOegpVa/RgBYiu2eZG5uUz0/8m7/IAXX3l9pd/RPmp7LYhw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7095 Date: 2004-04-14T10:40:41-04:00 List-Id: Randy Brukardt wrote: > I agree with all of this too. Also not going to happen. See AI-290, also > voted "No Action". On pragma Pure and static expressions, I think that you (Randy) are being a little premature. It may come up again for Ada 1Z. AI-290 is about pragma Pure_Function. Of course, I think that in out for functions is never going to happen. (The idea of making 'Access implicit in some contexts is interesting, and may end up allowing the reality without changing the rule.) If you want in out parameters for functions, use GNAT and modify it, or use the existing GNAT value returning proceedure pragma. -- Robert I. Eachus "The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed--and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business at hand." -- Dick Cheney