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 08:01:36 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: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:00:43 -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: <1075390647.405841@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <1075851506.238480@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <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> <Q8ednQJYRPsQZKDd4p2dnA@comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <Q8ednQJYRPsQZKDd4p2dnA@comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1077811251.972122@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: 1077811252  28420 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5866
Date: 2004-02-26T11:00:43-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
 > Randy posted a very good explanation of why his compiler
> does it in a different order.

Yes. That was finally a legitimate example of the compiler
using this permission to generate better code.

> But it is much harder to do that than to make the 
> code agnostic about evaluation order, and that is intentional.

But unlike such things as array index violations, Ada isn't
required to tell you that your code is not agnostic about
evaluation order, and therefore such violations can lurk
undetected.