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: 2004-02-02 06:33:52 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:33:21 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
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: <mailman.35.1075191506.2270.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <1075225041.167448@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <wccvfmxrw9q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <vcve10h7hhlc8pea4vu5pvr5035917i60r@4ax.com>
 <1075303237.975898@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <9khh10pti0dn8gcp7f18ghptaifluj0fud@4ax.com>
 <1075390647.405841@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <pan.2004.01.29.18.20.03.61778@email.ro>
 <1075405582.982776@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <s06k109c4nesjr09rhtilrh1ksjsanl6cs@4ax.com>
 <1075482385.142744@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <tk3s10lso10c53841dr3sk5kiok5p46gjf@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <tk3s10lso10c53841dr3sk5kiok5p46gjf@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1075732402.294581@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@carrots.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1075732402  8847 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5178
Date: 2004-02-02T09:33:21-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> Which means that the code is wrong.
 > ...
 > Because "found to work" /= "found correct".
 > ...
> But isn't it better to know that the code remains valid for any order?

There's no question that the code is wrong. There's no question that
as the language stands, it would be better to know that it is valid
for any order. The problem is that wrong code which has been found
to work can slip out into production. We know this is the case in C
for array bounds and pointer access, exacerbated by the compiler not
checking for these kinds of errors, and I don't see why it should not
be the case for Ada errors not detected by the compiler.

Once this code has slipped out into production, what gain is there by
having it potentially break by a change in environment?