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: 103376,25aa3c7e1b59f7b5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-07 07:38:16 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!spool0900.news.uu.net!reader0900.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3C39C120.1060706@mail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 10:39:12 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US;
 rv:0.9.7+) Gecko/20010929
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A case where Ada defaults to unsafe?
References: <3C34BF2C.6030500@mail.com> <a12il6$gcs$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
 <3C34D252.4070307@mail.com> <5ee5b646.0201040829.18db8001@posting.google.com>
 <3C35E733.6030603@mail.com> <u3bu42jp7h5k0d@corp.supernews.com>
 <3C35FE2A.9020802@mail.com> <u3c2lgenii1m55@corp.supernews.com>
 <3C360E76.3070308@mail.com> <wcpZ7.4393$cD4.8463@www.newsranger.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@mosquito.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1010417892 reader0.ash.ops.us.uu.net 11391 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18600
Date: 2002-01-07T10:39:12-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ted Dennison wrote:

> I can't possibly be reading this right. It seems you are trying to argue that
> all of the following are true:
> 
> o  communative "and" has no practical benifits (a debatable point, but one which
> we have answered multiple times),


I can see only one *practical* benefit, which is that you can write
an overloaded version for your own data types which then has the same
semantics as the built-in version, i.e., both operands are always
evaluated. I haven't seen multiple answers otherwise, except for dubious
claims about optimization.


> o  documenting the fact that you shouldn't move the components of a particular
> condition around is of no benifit.

> o  "and then" somehow saves you when you get the order of conditions backwards.


No, you misunderstand - I'm claiming that except for point one, "and" semantics
are useless and that the program is better served by "and then".