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: 103376,573be8c453ecbff4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: 'Read for pointers
Date: 2000/07/31
Message-ID: <wcc1z0ab4pr.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 652861802
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <8lndgv$1om$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <NHIf5.185$wE4.33424@nnrp3.sbc.net>
 <uaef1lxlw.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <XBGg5.33$Tc1.42551@nnrp1.sbc.net>
 <uem4awakr.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-07-31T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

> I stand corrected. I guess the Ada designers were trying to prevent
> garbage pointers. I think I'd prefer the standard "initialized to
> null" behavior here, for consistency. 

I kind of agree.  But suppose you pass something as an 'out' parameter,
and under some conditions, the called procedure does not assign into
it.  Do you really want the actual to be set to null in that case?
Perhaps so...

- Bob