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: matthew_heaney@acm.org (Matthew Heaney)
Subject: Re: Parameter evaluation order
Date: 1998/04/10
Message-ID: <matthew_heaney-ya023680001004980936440001@news.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 342796115
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <6g9d2o$tfg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <matthew_heaney-ya023680000504982157020001@news.ni.net>
 <x7vemz7xncq.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Organization: Network Intensive
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <x7vemz7xncq.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>, Simon Wright
<simon@pogner.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> declare
>>    Arg1 : constant Arg1Type := Func_One;
>>    Arg2 : constant Arg2Type := Func_Two;
>> begin
>>    proc (Arg1, Arg2);
>> end;
>
>I was wondering if, because the order need arises from [invisible?]
>side-effects, a compiler might be allowed to reorder the declarations;
>but 3.11(7) says
>
>The elaboration of a declarative_part consists of the elaboration of
>the declarative_items, if any, in the order in which they are given in
>the declarative_part.

The term is "linear elaboration" of declarations.  You need this so you can
use the value of an object previously declared.  It's the same as the let*
expression in Lisp (compare let).