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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ukma!cwjcc!gatech!hubcap!billwolf
From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Collective response to := messages
Message-ID: <3720@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 2 Dec 88 19:31:28 GMT
References: <10918@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP
Reply-To: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From article <10918@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, by dsr@hector.UUCP (David S. Rosenblum):
> 
> The ADT-handling package may feel like leaving a component undefined, but
> Ada doesn't feel like leaving variables undefined after an assignment.
> That's why such a user-defined assignment violates Ada's strong typing.

      Really?  Consider the following:

         procedure FUN_WITH_UNDEFINED_VARIABLES is

            A : INTEGER;    -- A is undefined...
            B : INTEGER;    -- B is undefined...
         
         begin
            A := B;   -- Quick, what value does A have? 
         end FUN_WITH_UNDEFINED_VARIABLES;

      This compiles and executes under Alsys Ada.