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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-30 08:09:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:09:10 -0500 From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions References: <1075159458.149886@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1075225041.167448@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1075303237.975898@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <9khh10pti0dn8gcp7f18ghptaifluj0fud@4ax.com> <1075390647.405841@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1075405582.982776@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: KBC Financial Products Message-ID: <1075478950.231615@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10 X-Trace: 1075478950 10652 204.253.250.10 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5098 Date: 2004-01-30T11:09:10-05:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > will be caught by the SPARK toolset... > establish guidelines... To be caught by a toolset requires whole-program analysis. At the very least, this dooms people who are writing libraries or generics. Establishing guidelines is no substitute for having the language avoid problems. C has a guideline that you should not index beyond the end of an array. > To change the rules now would make lots of code obsolete. How can defining something which was previously unspecified make code obsolete? I'm not saying that Ada should change any specified behavior it currently has, I'm just saying that currently unspecified behavior should become specified. > Now think about the effort required to develop the tools > for your proposed change, and go away. There's certainly work involved in the compiler to make it evaluate things in a specific order. I personally would not classify it at the "go away" level. I know that GCC includes a Java compiler, so it at least has infrastructure for doing this at some level.