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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.50.29.9 with SMTP id f9mr69320igh.0.1438209648781;
 Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.105.102 with SMTP id b93mr614349qgf.26.1438209648623;
 Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pg9no5170771igb.0!news-out.google.com!4ni82659qgh.1!nntp.google.com!69no2698423qgl.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mpbbtq$vvi$1@loke.gir.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=81.203.145.32;
 posting-account=AFCLjAoAAABJAOf_HjgEEEi3ty-lG5m2
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.203.145.32
References: <e610ca1e-4df6-4fbb-b3a1-ac35694d9072@googlegroups.com>
 <mp7pn9$mb3$1@dont-email.me> <1ckwx9hern944$.1w0k6fbvlqo62$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <fddb0ac0-6554-44d6-9c23-7c23883884d3@googlegroups.com>
 <mp7ulm$a4b$1@dont-email.me>
 <40d6112b-4b6e-45bd-9d50-2cbf5b773d70@googlegroups.com>
 <mp8q84$fbt$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <0b9d9227-61d8-4d55-9e6b-aa31180a2e6e@googlegroups.com>
 <mpbbtq$vvi$1@loke.gir.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <839a252b-c804-42a8-b2aa-a8a089486dcc@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Running a preprocessor from GPS?
From: EGarrulo <egarrulo@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:40:48 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:194463
Date: 2015-07-29T15:40:48-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:09:31 PM UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> (Note that it is not possible to do lazy evaluation on a 
> call-by-call basis, as it would necessarily change the code in the body --  
> and no one would want lazy evaluation to be the default for all bodies.)

The compiler could replicate the original procedure -- or function --
and adapt it to take an implicit function.  But doing so would impact code
size.