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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2012 Corrigendum
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 19:32:11 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <m0nf6d$bde$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <nRsQv.117415$412.60522@fx30.iad>
 <kFGQv.205472$O13.15633@fx17.iad> <wcciokszmfo.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1412382733 11694 69.95.181.76 (4 Oct 2014 00:32:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 00:32:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:22058
Date: 2014-10-03T19:32:11-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message 
news:wcciokszmfo.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Issue 2: Static (and compile-time) Functions
...
> In fact, I think that idea was discussed when expression functions were
> invented -- you might find it useful to read the AI that introduced
> expression functions.

Moreover, it also was reraised last year, and we have AI12-0075-1 for the 
issue. That's currently not planned for the Corrigendum, but one of the 
topics at this month's meeting is to revisit all of the future ideas and see 
if there are any that could and should be handled now. I'd not expect this 
one to be promoted, because the exact rules were never defined, just a lot 
of cases that need to be handled. (I think we'd only promote "shovel-ready" 
ideas, as the Corrigendum needs to be finished early next year; we're not 
going to have time to do a lot of discussion and revision on ideas.)

> There must be some restrictions on what can go in these functions
> (e.g. calls to other impure functions?).

Right. That's the hard part. The AI mentions things like the subtypes of the 
formal parameters and whether unused parameters participate in the 
correctness check. A good idea in the abstract, but the devil is in the 
details as always.

                                  Randy.