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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable 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: 2004-04-09 04:29:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsrout1.ntli.net!news.ntli.net!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions Date: 09 Apr 2004 07:27:05 -0400 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <87brm1pksa.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1081510041 50140 212.85.156.195 (9 Apr 2004 11:27:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:27:21 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <87brm1pksa.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6891 Date: 2004-04-09T07:27:05-04:00 Florian Weimer writes: > Stephen Leake writes: > > > Ada has a wart. Let's admit it, and move on. > > Can't we fix that one without breaking backwards compatibility? We could; simply permit 'in out' in functions. > Or are politics involved? Yes. There are some people (members of the ARG included) who don't want 'in out' in functions. I have only talked seriously with one person who holds that view (Rod Chapman, at the last SigAda). I can't really do justice to his view here, so I won't try, but it was based on serious considerations. I had the impression that if I spent enough time, I could convince him to change. On the other hand, he may have had the same impression about me :). As Robert Dewar says, there are no new arguments here, so there is no reason to reopen the discussion. I was just venting :). -- -- Stephe