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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2012: In-out parameters for functions
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 19:26:15 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <km9hna$cdc$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <7704abab-86f2-4edc-ad4b-b3d4e70004fb@googlegroups.com>
 <UYadnS4eOq5gCB7MnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <op.wwiascfvule2fv@cardamome> <op.wwibdpw7ule2fv@cardamome>
 <km1h9d$k5k$1@munin.nbi.dk> <aumqbiFf76eU1@mid.individual.net>
 <op.wwlyp5ymule2fv@cardamome>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1367886378 12716 69.95.181.76 (7 May 2013 00:26:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 00:26:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:15384
Date: 2013-05-06T19:26:15-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:op.wwlyp5ymule2fv@cardamome...
>Le Sun, 05 May 2013 12:24:50 +0200, Niklas Holsti 
><niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> a écrit:
>
>> How about reusing the mode keywords:
>>
>>    Proc (
>>       In_Param  => in A,
>>       Out_Param => out B,
>>       In_Out_Param => in out C);
>>
>>
>> An alternative, perhaps more English-like, [.]
>>
>>    Proc (
>>       in In_Param  => A,
>>       out Out_Param => B,
>>       in out In_Out_Param => C);
>>
>
>But may be the first is more Chinese-like :P (I don't know, I don't know 
>Chinese)
>
>Not joking, the first looks better to me, it better express what it means 
>as the mode is closer to the actual parameter which is the subject of the 
>mode (the same way at the declaration, it is closer to the type, which is 
>the best to me for a similar reason).
>
>Seems this topic was not discussed at all for Ada 2012.

Not at all true. It was considered as part of AI05-0144-1, the AI that added 
the order-of-evaluation legality checks to the language. We decided to do 
nothing because there was no agreement on what syntax to use (as noted in 
this thread) and there also was a minority of people who thought it was a 
bad idea (also noted in this thread).

It's true that it didn't get a separate AI, but it was included in the AI 
dealing with the problem of function calls with side-effects -- which is the 
only important reason to consider it. We create AIs for *problems*, not for 
*solutions*.

                               Randy.