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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-26 09:49:43 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.CH!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler <nntp-2004-02@t-domaingrabbing.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:49:00 +0100
Organization: JeLlyFish software
Message-ID: <njbs30ptl3n3ag037airj32hhh8fo0apsf@jellix.jlfencey.com>
References: <1075987360.225622@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <40236C0B.E988E003@0.0>
 <xay_b.429$ax2.177@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
 <pan.2004.02.24.01.44.30.311621@email.ro>
 <1077634311.254581@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <pan.2004.02.24.23.23.33.578111@email.ro>
 <mailman.20.1077669870.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <82347202.0402251405.2db2f3c5@posting.google.com>
 <1077747598.55635@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <t9fr30tnl8rh0ain01qeqq17ottovqdso3@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <1077810507.305563@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.ch (213.200.246.247)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1077817782 52759484 I 213.200.246.247 ([175126])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5868
Date: 2004-02-26T18:49:00+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen wrote:

>Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
>> Yes, and that is a very good example on how to write bad code. First:
>> GetName is obviously a function with side-effect, second it relies on
>> a specific calling order.
>
>Well, duh. The discussion is about what behavior we want in this case
>should we actually define a specific calling order.

Yes. But I don't like the idea of inviting programmers to a party "We
have defined the evaluation order - now you can write functions with
side-effects and they behave equally strange on all systems".

>> I think, all this discussion about execution order is a little bit
>> senseless when today we have processors that do explicit instruction
>> reordering and even have parallel execution support.
>
>Not at all. We are discussing the semantics of Ada. How they are
>implemented on a processor by the compiler is not relevant.

It just doesn't make sense to argue about a specific order if the
processor itself changes it when the code gets executed, does it?


Vinzent.