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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,64a6ad02ec510120
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-03 10:55:00 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!207.217.77.102!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net>
Subject: Re: Interfacing to C library...
User-Agent: Pan/0.13.1 (It's always funny until somebody immanentizes the
 eschaton (Debian GNU/Linux))
Message-ID: <pan.2002.11.03.18.58.26.54768@jps-nospam.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <wccpttp2p1x.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <n0zw9.2139$bG.200@rwcrnsc53> <pan.2002.11.02.05.14.57.594236@jps-nospam.net>
 <wcck7jwuf3v.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <pan.2002.11.02.18.38.36.851267@jps-nospam.net>
 <wccfzujvm21.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <pan.2002.11.03.00.04.21.535611@jps-nospam.net>
 <wccpttm1txo.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 18:55:08 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.119.15.188
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1036349708 216.119.15.188 (Sun,
 03 Nov 2002 10:55:08 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 10:55:08 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30322
Date: 2002-11-03T18:55:08+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In <wccpttm1txo.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>, Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net> writes:

>> Aha! I missed that you couldn't mix "in/out" w/ "access" in a subprogram
>> parameter list declaration/definition. Okay, definitely nicer than defining
>> 40 access to record types...
> 
> You *can* mix 'in out' with 'access':
> 
>     procedure P(X: in out R; Y: access R);
> 
> is legal.  Perhaps what you're thinking of is the fact that functions do
> not allow 'in out' parameters, so sometimes people use access parameters
> instead, when they want a function to have side effects on its
> parameters.  C functions do that all the time -- e.g., you pass a
> "char *", and the function writes upon the thing pointed-to, and *also*
> returns some sort of status code.

I was thinking of 6.1.15
                                                                                                      
   parameter_specification ::=                                                                             
       defining_identifier_list : mode  subtype_mark [:= default_expression]                               
     | defining_identifier_list : access_definition [:= default_expression] 

procedure Foo (Thing : in out access Bar);

But, I suppose that doesn't make any sense...  Anyway, thanks for the
help...