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,ec4a7355f321a22b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsr1.ipcore.viaginterkom.de!news-peer1!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail
From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Task discriminants
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:05:17 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Message-ID: <c8luet$b8k$1@titan.btinternet.com>
References: <40ACC50E.9040406@mail.usyd.edu.au>
 <mailman.1.1085073466.401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <c8itt3$gkq$1@titan.btinternet.com> <40adcdfe_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>
 <c8kti8$p07$1@titan.btinternet.com> <YIadnaE4uYUXxjPd4p2dnA@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-56-112.range81-152.btcentralplus.com
X-Trace: titan.btinternet.com 1085177117 11540 81.152.56.112 (21 May 2004
 22:05:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:05:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:758
Date: 2004-05-21T22:05:17+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:YIadnaE4uYUXxjPd4p2dnA@megapath.net...
> > Difinately one for the language lawyers but _in_the_real_world_ I've yet
> to
> > come across a compiler that did anything other than the 'sensible'
thing.
> >
> > Randy are there? :-)
>
> The RM says "arbitrary order" for initializing subcomponents of object
> declarations (see 3.3.1(20) - this is the "fourth step"). So you can't
> depend on it.
>
> OTOH, it's fairly hard to imagine why an implementation would do anything
> other than use a loop to do it, which would of course give the right
answer.
> So practically, it probably would work right.

For once I'd actually spotted that! But when ever I try and quote the RM
there is always some other section that proved me wrong! ;-)