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 10:12:41 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 13:12:32 -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: <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>
 <1077810507.305563@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <njbs30ptl3n3ag037airj32hhh8fo0apsf@jellix.jlfencey.com>
In-Reply-To: <njbs30ptl3n3ag037airj32hhh8fo0apsf@jellix.jlfencey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1077819160.315472@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: 1077819160  28420 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5869
Date: 2004-02-26T13:12:32-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
> Yes. But I don't like the idea of inviting programmers to a party "We
> have defined the evaluation order - now you can write functions with
> side-effects and they behave equally strange on all systems".

The idea is to make it not strange, so that you read the code and
immediately understand what it does.

> It just doesn't make sense to argue about a specific order if the
> processor itself changes it when the code gets executed, does it?

Of course it does, in the same way that we can talk about Ada's
support for decimal arithmetic on processors which are unrelentingly
binary. Programming langiage semantics don't have anything to do
with processor semantics.