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: 2004-02-04 07:54:23 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: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:54:21 -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: <1075732402.294581@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <loqs105qi5ud0uhet3vbjinlhknmaf4o40@4ax.com>
 <1075741279.952497@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <16nu1099ekujjbpe9dqvs3noi9sdcfja6e@4ax.com>
 <1075817212.745748@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <padv10hc6ndicrrem6beftvnh18gr4f27j@4ax.com>
 <1075824683.769215@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <pan.2004.02.03.22.38.49.622001@email.ro>
 <1075851506.238480@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <4020C947.81A6D703@0.0>
 <1075907239.138068@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <123220to3lncqppiu5vb4up7j0drs5mf25@jellix.jlfencey.com>
In-Reply-To: <123220to3lncqppiu5vb4up7j0drs5mf25@jellix.jlfencey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1075910062.117961@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: 1075910062  10865 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5233
Date: 2004-02-04T10:54:21-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
> It is not only unwise, it is plain stupid.

Under current rules.

> Precisely. You don't need to fix the evaluation order. It wouldn't
> help anyway because the code remains to be stupid.

It would help by making the "stupid" code work the same way
everywhere, cutting down an opportunity for error. And then
it would lead to non-stupid uses, such as the initialization
code I've been posting.