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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!uunet!microsoft!jamesth
From: jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: AND and argument evaluation
Message-ID: <54973@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 90 16:27:10 GMT
References: <RFC-822:900527221328.2gp@sic.epfl.ch>
Reply-To: jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

[A very long discussion over many messages extensively quoting the
[Ada LRM and various Ada books with numerous comments on abstract
[conditions where optimization is allowed by compilers deleted.

When I worked with Ada, 1986-9, I remember many times when a
seemingly simple question about Ada syntax or semantics required
a long treasure hunt through the LRM.  The answers were almost
always buried in references to other sections.

Sure, I can now tell you quickly why "for Index in -1..1 loop"
is not valid Ada, but you won't find a comment about "-1..1"
in the section on "for".

Which brings me to my favorite quote about Ada:

	"Ada is PASCAL for lawyers."

Anyone know who said it first?

James Thiele -- microsoft!jamesth