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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-25 04:01:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <403C8EA8.4020904@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions References: <1075390647.405841@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1075405582.982776@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1075482385.142744@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1075732402.294581@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1075741279.952497@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <16nu1099ekujjbpe9dqvs3noi9sdcfja6e@4ax.com> <1075817212.745748@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1075824683.769215@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1075851506.238480@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <4020C947.81A6D703@0.0> <1075907239.138068@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <402232E9.3EE15B4B@0.0> <1075987360.225622@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <40236C0B.E988E003@0.0> <1077634311.254581@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:01:51 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.1.198 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1077710511 209.165.1.198 (Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:01:51 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:01:51 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5787 Date: 2004-02-25T12:01:51+00:00 List-Id: That is an issue I think we Ada fans often get caught up in. "Well, in *theory* an Ada compiler could do blah blah blah...." But if, in *practice*, none of them do and none of them have any plans to do so, then effectively "The Language" doesn't do it. A good example is when people post here asking "Does Ada have garbage collection?" We tell them the standard allows it, but nobody does it. Do they care that the standard allows it if they can't get a compiler that does it? The same goes for other issues like efficiency. A feature might theoretically be implementable in an efficient manner, but if nobody does it well in practice, you get the accusation "Ada is slow..." and its hard to argue against. There is a real distinction between what the standard says and what might exist by way of implementations, but for most practical purposes, average developers don't make that distinction. Hence, there is a de facto "standard" which cannot be ignored. MDC Stephen Leake wrote: > > 2) Does anyone have a real example of a compiler taking advantage of > the evaluation order freedom to speed up a program? > > I have not heard anyone respond to 2), which is supposedly the reason > the freedom is there. If no compiler actually takes advantage of it, > it's not worth having. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================