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-Thread: 103376,d0310bb11aeb7260
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.42.163.65 with SMTP id b1mr7482623icy.2.1321473692039;
        Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 h5ni62313pba.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT 4.4.5 order of conditional processing?
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:01:30 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m2obwbalb9.fsf@pushface.org>
References: 
 <8f003611-8375-4de7-bfd0-1d6b3f910c30@m13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
	<j9vi06$h8d$1@speranza.aioe.org>
	<088d92d6-7b50-4556-9af4-aa63233a4092@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="dFCm8HWntFqmDIilBLqEJQ";
	logging-data="25223"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+tAFPq/oszsOSO/nBOCkkjUOi4uVl/EA="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SxYJL+qUyY6pVSAbU0kJ4EVIHPY=
	sha1:jJgEVlUrGj6AqbFeokwpaDZxhDo=
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14428
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2011-11-16T20:01:30+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

awdorrin <awdorrin@gmail.com> writes:

> In this case, the short-circuit logic is necessary based on how the
> code has been structured.
>
> The first conditional, is to see if the simulation is done being
> initialized, the second and third conditionals are variables that
> won't be initialized with valid values until the initialization is
> complete.
>
> Before anyone jumps in to comment on how bad this approach is, I
> already know ;) but I'm dealing with porting code originally written
> 20 years ago. First step is to get it functional, second step is to
> fix/update it. :-)

I for one don't think it's bad; it's the way the problem is.