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: 2000/04/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 610822758 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$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8d54bm$t2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > In article , > Robert A Duff wrote: > > > 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?! > > I don't understand the above paragraph in relation to the > C_Pass_By_Copy pragma as opposed to the RM. My quote above > was specifically about this pragma. Yes, I misunderstood. I was talking about the RM. I thought you were saying you don't like C_Pass_By_Copy because that should be the normal RM behavior; the pragma is to get around a bug in the RM. So remind me: what is "unsupportable" about the design of C_Pass_By_Copy (other than the fact that we wish it didn't have to exist at all)? - Bob