Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ukma!rex!JNCS@uno.edu
From: jncs@uno.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: LRM 4.1.3 paragraphs 17-19
Message-ID: <009442AE.D4BD5E20@uno.edu>
Date: 13 Feb 91 16:32:01 GMT
References: <1991Feb8.063458.850@kestrel.edu> <1991Feb09.023913.524@mojsys.com> <2704@sparko.gwu.edu> <631.27b781ac@vger.nsu.edu> <2711@sparko.gwu.edu> <1991Feb12.154418@riddler.Berkeley.EDU>,<2715@sparko.gwu.edu>
Sender: news@rex.cs.tulane.edu
Reply-To: jncs@uno.edu
Distribution: usa
Lines: 16

In article <2715@sparko.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
>In article <1991Feb12.154418@riddler.Berkeley.EDU> yow@riddler.Berkeley.EDU (Billy Yow 283-4009) writes:
>>  
>
>Another is the parameter passing scheme, in which reference semantics can
>be used to pass arrays to IN parameters with no danger that the actual
>will be changed (because IN parameters can't be written to).
>Less copying (though a colleague of mine pointed out that the extra
>indirection could actually make the program _slower_.)
>
The LRM leaves to the implementor to actually decide on the method of parameter
passing IMPLEMENTATION in the case of structured types and IN parameters. I
may use IN for arrays hoping for the COPY-semantics, but the LRM tells me not
to trust it!

J. Nino