Re: In-Out Parameters for functions

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> Sorry, Hyman, but Ada has a very specific meaning for "unspecified result",
> and that's what people here (usually) mean. "Unspecified" means not only is
> *any* result allowed, but also that the implementer doesn't even need to
> tell you what the result will be.

That doesn't seem to be correct. Here's a quote from 1.1.3 of the ARM:
     Certain aspects of the semantics are defined to be either
     implementation defined or unspecified. In such cases, the
     set of possible effects is specified, and the implementation
     may choose any effect in the set. Implementations shall document
     their behavior in implementation-defined situations, but
     documentation is not required for unspecified situations.

So I would have to say you're wrong. Unspecifed behavior allows the
implementation to choose from a limited set of possible effects, not
from an unlimited one, and the implementation doesn't have to tell
you what it chooses.

 > I realize you are using the term informally, but I think you're confusing a
 > lot of people by using it.

Apparently, I was using it formally, and the confused people are confused :-)