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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2907a68906511623
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: swhalen@netcom.com (Steve Whalen)
Subject: Re: Idea for Ada 200x: Arguments that are procedures
Date: 1998/07/03
Message-ID: <swhalenEvI788.43x@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 368317273
Sender: swhalen@netcom6.netcom.com
References: <6nh9f0$66i@netline.jpl.nasa.gov>
Organization: ? 
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Van,

I'd vote for "fixing" this deficiency in the Ada200x version of the
language.  The way you suggested using "limited" for procedures as
parameters seems like a reasonable syntax to me.

Compared to GNAT's Unrestricted_Access attribute I would MUCH prefer
your approach because (to me) such attributes are way too powerful
(and implementation dependant).

This is about the only language issue I've seen raised on
comp.lang.ada that actually causes me problems in *my* "real world".
It seems silly to keep requiring workarounds for a deceased
implementation.

I hope you'll follow up on this with whomever one follows up with in
order to get this on the official list of things to add to Ada200x.

I couldn't find the old discussions of this particular issue in the
Mapping / Revision Team stuff, or the Language Study Notes.  However,
if there was no better reason for keeping this feature out of the
language than that implementations using displays would have problems,
I think this "fix" absolutely should make it into Ada200x.

Steve
-- 
{===--------------------------------------------------------------===}
                Steve Whalen     swhalen@netcom.com
{===--------------------------------------------------------------===}