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: 103376,56131a5c3acc678e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-26 13:46:36 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Question about OO programming in Ada
Date: 26 Nov 2003 16:36:55 -0500
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Message-ID: <ullq2yfpk.fsf@nasa.gov>
References: <bq092s$9ph$1@online.de> <vs7eaf1kispja1@corp.supernews.com>
 <bq0sdt$52l$1@online.de> <u4qwryvkj.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <vsa22beii15rb2@corp.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shevek.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1069882883 17434 128.183.235.101 (26 Nov 2003
 21:41:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Nov 2003 21:41:23 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2974
Date: 2003-11-26T21:41:23+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> "Stephen Leake" <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:u4qwryvkj.fsf@nasa.gov...
> > > > Yikes! The "in" isn't allowed here, nor is the "all" -- they're both
> > > > assumed.
> > >
> > > "in" is allowed, even if assumed. :-)
> >
> > Hmm. Never make statements like this without first running the code
> > thru a compiler. Randy writes compilers and edits the Ada Language
> > Reference Manual (you probably did not know this), so he knows what
> > he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks for the complement, even though it isn't always true. :-)
> 
> > "in" is neither assumed nor allowed.
> 
> Well, (putting on the language laywer hat), 6.1(18) says that the mode of an
> access parameter is 'in'. 

To forestall a confusion that often arises in this context: this means
the access value itself can't be changed within the subprogram; the
object pointed to can be.

> So in that sense, mode 'in' is assumed - which is what I meant by
> the original comment. But it definitely is not allowed to give 'in'
> for an access parameter.
> 
>                    Randy.

-- 
-- Stephe