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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,aa955fc1adc2b46d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: of possible interest
Date: 8 May 2006 00:26:06 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1147073166.032155.63100@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
References: <1146769504.421510.21010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <8764klwpz5.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
   <EBh7g.2551$fb2.2534@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
   <87u082ouzs.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
   <0gcs52lejunc5qar09mf2mng2kg8kumedk@4ax.com>
   <20060507223701.175e2ec9@localhost.darkstar>
   <1147040746.9037.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.190.145.10
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1147073170 21659 127.0.0.1 (8 May 2006 07:26:10
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 07:26:10 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1147040746.9037.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; fr-FR;
 rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 SEVPXS01
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.190.145.10;
   posting-account=ZjNXewwAAADyBPkwI57_UcX8yKfXWOss
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4136
Date: 2006-05-08T00:26:06-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus writes :
> On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 22:37 +0200, Frederic Praca wrote:
>> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> a =E9crit :
>>
>>> 	begin
>>> 		dummy :=3D some_function(some_argument);
>>> 		--	dummy is never made use of; effectively
>>> ignored end;
>>
>> Yes but in this case, everybody knows you explicitly ingore the
>> return value, you didn't forget it by mistake.
>
> Does anyone know how relevant this is in practice,
> given in mistakes per product, or increased development
> cost?

Not very relevant IMHO, because Ada programmers, knowing that return
values cannot be ignored, design functions in such a way that the
returned value is sufficiently interesting that the caller will not
want to ignore it. In the few cases I've seen where the value is
actually ignored, there was always a comment explaining why, and this
was usually a symptom of poor design of the function.

--=20
Ludovic Brenta.