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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is this a bug in my code or the compiler?
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:27:27 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <16cwc4uk0raxi.iinfpkn9sqid$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <4f4cd4b1-0a6d-441b-a4f7-98add70e4e1e@googlegroups.com>
 <1p71vf5ckbudu$.1qcb9ot1jpysk.dlg@40tude.net> <mlf4j0$slg$1@dont-email.me>
 <1g33axhwakrzx.o6t14iz4jruy.dlg@40tude.net> <mlgv5n$hqp$1@dont-email.me>
 <12d47zawbqsu2$.fba3cmxkkrq1.dlg@40tude.net> <mlm9r4$gl9$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: enOx0b+nfqkc2k+TNpOejg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:193632
Date: 2015-06-15T14:27:27+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:37:37 +0200, G.B. wrote:

> On 13.06.15 12:32, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>>>   parallelism is a can of worms.
>>>
>>> ... if designed without regard to parallel evaluation/execution.
>>> That's a matter of course, isn't it?
>>
>> Well, the parallelism of that kind is too low-level.
> 
> I find this ascription of low level a little too general,
> missing opportunities, and pessimistic. After all, processors
> do manage to provide even lower level parallelism internally,
> and while difficult to predict, the results seem logically
> correct.

Determinism /= high level.

>> The third approach is explicit ordering syntax, e.g. some extended syntax
>> of the keyed argument association.
> 
> Yes. But how?
> 
> "&" means "concatenation", therefore sequencing, only at the level of
> metaphor, not at the level of programming. For operators, consider
> 
>    function "+" (Left : S; Right : T) return R;

E.g.

   "+" (Right #> Y, Left #> X);

#> reads evaluated left-to-right.

> To me, this looks like "normal", good O-O design principles at work,
> in that Left's operation does not rely on Right's internal state, and
> vice versa.

It is not about the state in this case. When the body of + is called its
arguments already reached their states.

The concept of evaluation order is orthogonal to procedural/states POV.
Compare procedure with entry point. Entry point is nothing but a procedure
with an evaluation order enforced on separate tasks.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de