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,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-27 18:54:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!nnx.oleane.net!oleane!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions Date: 27 Jan 2004 21:53:06 -0500 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: 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 1075258398 82306 80.67.180.195 (28 Jan 2004 02:53:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:53:18 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 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:4971 Date: 2004-01-27T21:53:06-05:00 "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" writes: > Stephen Leake wrote: > > > What is wrong with using mode "in out" for functions in special cases? > > Nothing wrong, I think (especially if mutable parameters are marked > as such at the call site). But this thread was about the difference > between IN OUT and change of a global variable, Hmm. Please see the "subject" line up above. If you beleive the subject has changed, please post with a different subject. > and I just tried to show that this difference really exists. Hmm. I guess there might be some subtle differences, but I don't see them as important. > It does not mean that I'm against IN OUT mode parameters for > functions. On the contrary, I think that it should be permitted > (with suitable restrictions and rules). But at the same time I think > that arguments against that must be stated explicitly. Ok, sounds like we are in agreement. Except I don't see any need for any restrictions; that's what style guides and code reviews are for. -- -- Stephe