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: 103376,60dd4fe7723c0ef X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Ada Core Technologies announces GNATCOM Date: 2000/04/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 610334855 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <8coc5e$do2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8d0ru2$arc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8d1paa$n0n4@ftp.kvaerner.com> <8d2csa$1hm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > Indeed the quoted paragraph above is EXACTLY the confusion > that caused this unsupportable design of the C_Pass_By_COpy > pragma in the first place. I don't recall it that way. I think the reasoning was that when people conceptually want to pass a struct in C, they usually pass a pointer to it, so we should mimic that. Flawed reasoning, I admit. But surely you don't think that the designers of Ada 9X were confused about the difference between passing by reference, versus passing the address of a copy?! > Unfortunately, there is nothing much we can do at this stage > except live with a little mess here, luckily cases where C > programmers pass records as parameters (as opposed to pointers > to records) are rare. Yes. Somehow, "rare" became "nonexistent, so don't worry about it." *That* was the mistake. - Bob