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 12:23:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Question about OO programming in Ada Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:07:12 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2973 Date: 2003-11-26T14:07:12-06:00 List-Id: "Stephen Leake" 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'. 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.