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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f188b1cd9c1f24dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison)
Subject: Re: Parameter evaluation order
Date: 1998/04/07
Message-ID: <Er17n7.MA0@syd.csa.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 341632074
Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev7
References: <matthew_heaney-ya023680000504982157020001@news.ni.net>
Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney
Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Mark.Rutten wrote:

:I compiled a procedure call similar to the following
:
:  proc(func_one,func_two);
:
:The program relies on func_one being called _before_ func_two..

IMO, the problem is that Func_One generates a side-effect on which Func_Two
depends. Remove the side-effect and the problem will disappear!

I think what you really want is:

  do_side_effect;
  proc (func_one, func_two);.


Don.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison        doELIDEnh@syd.csa.com.au