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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Parameter evaluation order
Date: 1998/04/09
Message-ID: <dewar.892128071@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 342411203
References: <6g9d2o$tfg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <Er3o6w.54C@array.ca>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 892128306 30382 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Glenden said

<<Your compiler is probably optimizing it somehow.  Why don't you just break
it down into several lines?  It'd be easier to maintain for the next person
that looks at your code also.
>>

This is misleading. This has nothing to do with optimization, The order
of parameter evaluation is non-deterministic, the program worked exactly
as it should, it was just that the programmer had some incorrect expectation
based on a misunderstanding of Ada semantics.