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 10.129.108.213 with SMTP id h204mr20711944ywc.6.1434137940486;
        Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.33.202 with SMTP id j68mr245647qgj.41.1434137940463;
 Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!q107no881053qgd.0!news-out.google.com!4ni1255qgh.1!nntp.google.com!q107no881048qgd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <afb6fe82-1f67-49a8-b4b1-f814a71ba8fd@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=105.210.1.171;
 posting-account=orbgeAkAAADzWCTlruxuX_Ts4lIq8C5J
NNTP-Posting-Host: 105.210.1.171
References: <4f4cd4b1-0a6d-441b-a4f7-98add70e4e1e@googlegroups.com>
 <1p71vf5ckbudu$.1qcb9ot1jpysk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <afb6fe82-1f67-49a8-b4b1-f814a71ba8fd@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e64e5dbe-b90b-40bd-8790-42ceb6387e0c@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is this a bug in my code or the compiler?
From: jan.de.kruyf@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:39:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:26294
Date: 2015-06-12T12:39:00-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 7:53:07 PM UTC+2, David Botton wrote:

> 
> A programmer having to worry about order of operation in a concatenation operation is a language flaw in my opinion. I can accept the issue in evaluation order of Boolean expressions or numerics (and knew of that), but not in non numeric types.

Or, uh . . . A language designer having to worry about...  :)

I was going to post when I first saw the issue. But maybe I must still say it:
Programming twice removed from the bare metal might _seem_ easy and convenient, but it _is_ not in my experience.  Plenty of 'wait-a-bit' thorns await those who think otherwise.

A computer is a tool. A language is a tool. When you know your tools you can make wonders. When you dont . . you might need a few lessons of that most detested computer scientist Prof Wirth. :)

cheers, keep well David,

j.


> 
> David Botton