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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,38fc011071df5a27
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-03 07:22:34 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed.news.nacamar.de!news.f.de.plusline.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:22:33 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <bbiav9$4np$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <6a90b886.0305262344.1d558079@posting.google.com>
   <6vWcnTWjF83bD0qjXTWcpA@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0305311049.753bb8f0@posting.google.com>
 <KvydnZ2dnunHfUej4p2dnA@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0306022127.46f6c998@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbdp1mg.1lk.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <slrnbdp1pp.ns.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de> <3EDC8AA9.7000405@noplace.com>
 <slrnbdp47s.ns.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <slrnbdp59t.583.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <slrnbdp5jm.ns.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1054650153 4857 134.91.1.15 (3 Jun 2003
 14:22:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:22:33 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/831))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38477
Date: 2003-06-03T14:22:33+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de> wrote:

:  The common
: idiom X := X + Y; is error prone, because X might be evaluated twice without
: notice.

Still, in
  X +:= Y;
X might be evaluated during evaluation of Y, without notice.
Same in Add(Using => X, Adding => Y).

What about X +:= g(X) + f(X);

Is it really more clear to break this into a few statements
with augmented assignment, if at all possible?  Or should we
just be aware that Ada programs do have assignment, and not
referential transparancy everywhere?

Isn't memory/time-efficient implementation(!) a detail that deserves
its own descriptive names tailored to the special case?

my 2c (EUR. Hey, has it dropped after the recent USA/Euro meeting?)
-- Georg