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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-26 21:23:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!newsfeed3.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions Date: 27 Feb 2004 00:21:25 -0500 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <1077718871.47635@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <54cp3095jmv8s17h63d4bjdus0tec7l7pt@jellix.jlfencey.com> <1077721343.481619@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1077724400.221032@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1077727496.631820@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <103q2cf890pus79@corp.supernews.com> <1077744815.17965@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <-tednUSWDcMxbqDdRVn-sw@comcast.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1077859301 36442 212.85.156.195 (27 Feb 2004 05:21:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:21:41 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <-tednUSWDcMxbqDdRVn-sw@comcast.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5879 Date: 2004-02-27T00:21:25-05:00 "Robert I. Eachus" writes: > > > Can't we just all agree that Hymen is not an Ada language expert and > doesn't want to be? I don't think that is a fair characterization of Hymen's discussions. > In this case, the rules of Ada are well thought out to allow any > user, not the compiler to determine whether an "unnecessary" > function call can be eliminated. Similarly, the language allows > users to force syncronization points and orders of evaluation, when > they are a necessary part of the algorithm being implemented. Hymen is asking about the value of these rules _in practice_, and attempting to discuss whether a slightly different set of rules might be better for Ada. In particular, are there any _actual compilers_ that take advantage of the freedom given by 10.2.1 (18)? > We have jokingly called for shooting a programmer who knowingly > writes code that depends on order of evaluation and then--yes that > is an Ada and then--doesn't document it or force the compiler to use > the necessary order. Actually the correction applied would probably > be education, warnings, bad reviews, and eventually firing the > employee if nececssary. > > For anyone who deliberately persists in such bad habits, if necessary > could be within weeks. Emphasis on deliberately, but I have had to > make that decision for programmers who persisted in other bad habits > like bypassing the required check-in procedures for software. In that > case, firing the programmer probably saved him from a lynch mob, as > other programmmers kept finding their submissions being rejected due > to his changes not passing the regression tests. True. And appropriate for any bad habit. But not relevant here. The question is "would a slightly different rule be better for Ada". Not "what are the current rules of Ada". Although it is true that some people in this discussion need refreshers on that ... > What do we do with Mr. Hymen Rosen? For now, I'm going to just post > chapter and verse, and that Mr. Rosen's opinion on any Ada language > issue should be ignored. ok. -- -- Stephe