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,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-30 05:55:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions + object notation Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:03:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: <6fjh109qllmjek7ud2me7k1t40so3ervmk@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1075470932 28608823 212.79.194.116 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5095 Date: 2004-01-30T15:03:27+01:00 List-Id: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:23:28 +0300 (MSK), "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> I am afraid that allowing IN OUT parameters would be inconsistent with >> the functions of the protected objects. Provided that the prefix >> notation creeps Ada, it will be difficult to explain when X.Foo may >> change X and when not. > >I think that with the following alternative proposal for prefix notation >(which I have sent to Ada-Comment in June 2003) all that would be clearer: > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >!summary > >An alternative syntax is proposed here for AI-252. This alternative uses >new attribute instead of extension for meaning of dot-qualification, which is >currently proposed in AI-252. This text assumes the context of current AI-252. > >!proposal > >Let us introduce new attribute Method, which always must be followed by dot >and operation, i.e. > > Object'Method.Operation [...] People want Object.Operation, this is the only reason why one should have it. IMO any proposal for prefix notation should mend the disorder, caused by tasks and protected object using the prefix notation, while all other calls have the functional one. It is desirable to have an ability to choose a notation for all sorts of things having parameters. IMO the simplest way is to have an ability to declare subroutines, entry points, protected subroutines in any desired notation, plus to provide a renaming clause to introduce alternative notation[s]. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de