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 09:01:20 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 12:01:19 -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: <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>
 <1075732402.294581@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <loqs105qi5ud0uhet3vbjinlhknmaf4o40@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <loqs105qi5ud0uhet3vbjinlhknmaf4o40@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1075741279.952497@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: 1075741280  8847 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5183
Date: 2004-02-02T12:01:19-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> Semantically wrong code cannot be made correct by doing that.

That's not true. If it happens that a defined evaluation order
would do what the programmer wanted, then the code would indeed
become correct.

> it is like to define the result of A [-99999999999] as 0

No, it's not nearly as bad, because in the case of evaluation order,
we are specifying one of a set of legal results, whereas for indexing
there is no legal result.

> Wrong code should not go so far.

But there is (nearly) nothing to be gained by forcing the code to be
considered wrong.