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-Thread: 103376,99e73f65ea2533b9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:13:40 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: and then... (a curiosity) References: <18b41828-bda4-4484-8884-ad62ce1c831d@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <57qdnfULQ9tzKCHVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@comcast.com> <48bd0003$1@news.post.ch> <48bf90bf$0$30032$dbd4d001@news.euronet.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <48bffb24$0$11099$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Sep 2008 17:13:40 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 9bac9ee7.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=>fM6kgB?7??QbA1[CgMQ00ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR14nDHegD_]R5A32mJZQHcl4;9OJDO8_SK6NSZ1n^B98i:LcSPPC37mF7 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7643 Date: 2008-09-04T17:13:40+02:00 List-Id: 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.)