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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:28:56 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
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>
 	<874p53bij6.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>
 <94cc1ce3-59d1-41fa-9167-f3b60ddd2835@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <94cc1ce3-59d1-41fa-9167-f3b60ddd2835@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <48ba564a$0$1074$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Aug 2008 10:28:58 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 30c4b215.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=?keFMN@[?5V[7Non7UCi8UMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ4nDHegD_]RUDYU=f[>47RRPCY\c7>ejVX]mZH>gE[n6Sl5YS:@kU8nW
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1843
Date: 2008-08-31T10:28:58+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> On 29 Sie, 23:47, Samuel Tardieu <s...@rfc1149.net> wrote:
> 
>> Sometimes, you want to ensure that both sides of the boolean operator
>> have been evaluated. Here is an example:
>>
>>   --  Send the message to the log and return True if it
>>   --  has been logged at least at one place succesfully.
>>
>>   function Log (Message : String) return Boolean is
>>   begin
>>      return Log_To_Network (Message) or Log_To_Disk (Message);
>>   end Log;
> 
> This is actually a bad example. It might use "or else" and still
> retain the semantics as described in the comment above.

"At least one" of the logs should, I guess, mean to try both.
I.e., the Log subprogram is not about its return value alone.
"Or" achieves all of that (the semantics).

"Or else" might also establish a strict preference for the
network log. "Or" should not.