Re: anonymous access type

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> On 5 mar, 00:54, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's really a (minor) language design flaw that "in" is allowed but
>> not required. �It should be either required or forbidden. �(I would
>> prefer forbidden.) �As it is, the Ada language has split into three
>> dialects: always say 'in', never say 'in', and say 'in' only for
>> procedures. �That's unfortunate.
>>
>> - Bob
> If it ever becomes forbidden, this would brake too much application
> sources around the world. There is no chancge it would occurs.

Right.  It should have been either required or forbidden in 1983,
but it's way too late to fix that now.

> Then, as long as "in out" makes sens beside of "out", then "in" do as
> well (would seems strange if there was "in out", "out" and no "in").

Do you find it strange that we don't have:

    X : constant Integer := 123;
    Y : variable Integer := 456; -- Not Ada!

?

> As the latter one, I'm of the ones who prefer to always write "in".

- Bob