Re: and then... (a curiosity)

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

stefan-lucks@see-the.signature schrieb:

> But when "if X/=0 and Y/X<100" propagates an exception for X=0, as, alas, 
> done in Ada, something is logically wrong.

What seems wrong to me is the premise that "and" has a
meaning which is not defined the LRM.

Unfortunately, "and" is the conventional word for this subprogram.
However, switching context to mathematics when the subject
is programming has the obvious effects displayed in this thread.

With Ada requirements in mind (real-time systems,
hardware, predictable execution, ...), then I guess

 Standard."and"(F(X), G(Y))

should normally mean: call subprograms F and G,
just like

  Foo(F(X), G(Y))

should normally mean: call subprograms F and G.
(If at all, deviate from this rule when pragma Pure
applies to F or G and an optimizer is allowed to work.)