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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0310bb11aeb7260 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr29143529pbj.5.1321393889164; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:51:29 -0800 (PST) Path: h5ni58769pba.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: awdorrin Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT 4.4.5 order of conditional processing? Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:49:47 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <22d4b4be-1a2e-435c-9b92-fbda6999a4f3@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com> References: <9ig1t4F4uaU1@mid.individual.net> <87a589f9-e675-4672-a8c5-77e4a9db289e@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.91.147.34 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1321393889 30061 127.0.0.1 (15 Nov 2011 21:51:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:51:29 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.91.147.34; posting-account=YkFdLgoAAADpWnfCBA6ZXMWTz2zHNd0j User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESRCNK X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/8.0,gzip(gfe) Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14422 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2011-11-15T13:49:47-08:00 List-Id: On Nov 15, 4:23=A0pm, "Vinzent Hoefler" <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776...@t-domaingrabbing.de> wrote: > awdorrin wrote: > > So I am assuming by your response that there are no pragmas or GNAT > > compiler flags to enforce the order of evaluation? > > Nope. The compiler plays by the language rules only. > Figured that was is, sloppy programming that just managed to work (for 20 years) due to a compiler implementation... ;-) > > -- > f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgrmmng. I love your signature! :-)