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: 103376,99e73f65ea2533b9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!spool-big7.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:35:16 -0400 From: "Peter C. Chapin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: and then... (a curiosity) References: <18b41828-bda4-4484-8884-ad62ce1c831d@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <09fad49e-95d9-4ffc-a0bd-d68d14a0f901@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1tlnjekp3wf5g$.19r86nar256t2.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: <1tlnjekp3wf5g$.19r86nar256t2.dlg@40tude.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <48b968b4$0$31926$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> Organization: SoVerNet (sover.net) NNTP-Posting-Host: e78dc1a7.news.sover.net X-Trace: DXC=AfT_9Pdg\QLP7I;=`^Ef6@K6_LM2JZB_C7iUbF6^3TfD3?@`i3kGa5KVN^bOhdWkgJL@OZQhGTe5L X-Complaints-To: abuse@sover.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1841 Date: 2008-08-30T11:35:16-04:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > I am unsure if the arguments of "and" are eager. You are a language lawyer, > I am not. But I used to think that the eagerness of evaluation is rather > unspecified, so that the compiler is free "not to care," when it optimizes > the code, as Jeff Carter has pointed out. I thought all function arguments must be evaluated, but that it is unspecified in which order this evaluation is done. Peter