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: 2004-02-26 07:44:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:44:01 -0500 From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions References: <4020C947.81A6D703@0.0> <1075907239.138068@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <402232E9.3EE15B4B@0.0> <1075987360.225622@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <40236C0B.E988E003@0.0> <1077634311.254581@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1077718871.47635@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <54cp3095jmv8s17h63d4bjdus0tec7l7pt@jellix.jlfencey.com> <1077721343.481619@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1077727853.904323@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: <1077810250.28474@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: 1077810250 28420 204.253.250.10 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5861 Date: 2004-02-26T10:44:01-05:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> In any case, when I >> said that a + b becomes "+"(a, b) and not "+"(b, a) >> I was not "absolutely wrong" but "absolutely right". > > No, you were absolutely wrong as usual. The order of evaluation of the > parameters to "+" is undefined whether the "+" is user defined or > language defined. Where did I say that the order of evaluation of the operands was defined? V'G'H argued that the philosophy of Ada was that a + b and b + a are the same. I pointed out that for user-defined "+", when you write a + b, the function is called with a as the Left operand and b as the Right, never the reverse. > I should stop wrestling with pigs. You are so eager to believe I am wrong about everything I say that you are not reading what I say. Stop it. You're just going to annoy the pig :-)