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 07:49:14 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.radix.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:48:18 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
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> <xay_b.429$ax2.177@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
 <pan.2004.02.24.01.44.30.311621@email.ro>
 <1077634311.254581@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <pan.2004.02.24.23.23.33.578111@email.ro>
 <mailman.20.1077669870.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <82347202.0402251405.2db2f3c5@posting.google.com>
 <1077747598.55635@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <t9fr30tnl8rh0ain01qeqq17ottovqdso3@jellix.jlfencey.com>
In-Reply-To: <t9fr30tnl8rh0ain01qeqq17ottovqdso3@jellix.jlfencey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1077810507.305563@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: 1077810507  28420 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5862
Date: 2004-02-26T10:48:18-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
> Yes, and that is a very good example on how to write bad code. First:
> GetName is obviously a function with side-effect, second it relies on
> a specific calling order.

Well, duh. The discussion is about what behavior we want in this case
should we actually define a specific calling order.

> I think, all this discussion about execution order is a little bit
> senseless when today we have processors that do explicit instruction
> reordering and even have parallel execution support.

Not at all. We are discussing the semantics of Ada. How they are
implemented on a processor by the compiler is not relevant.