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: 103376,38fc011071df5a27
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-24 03:11:59 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.iks-jena.de!not-for-mail
From: Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:11:58 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: IKS GmbH Jena
Message-ID: <slrnbfg8vd.nq.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
References: <uhe6zw201.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <bebbba07.0306101640.19178e81@posting.google.com>
 <3EE7CC70.E1FD3A67@adaworks.com>
 <bebbba07.0306121116.33e4741@posting.google.com>
 <bcbu9i$hgu5j$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de> <AwvGa.1228118$F1.143267@sccrnsc04>
 <3EECA772.4B662024@adaworks.com> <hYmHa.6881$Hb.124073@news4.e.nsc.no>
 <BB13C10D.350A%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <bcl1pu$jscm4$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
 <BB13CDB9.3516%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <e2e5731a.0306180700.61b2575f@posting.google.com>
 <e2e5731a.0306191037.3addbae5@posting.google.com>
 <RpVJa.47832$JA5.837234@news.xtra.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: taranis.iks-jena.de
X-Trace: branwen.iks-jena.de 1056449518 23631 217.17.192.37 (24 Jun 2003
 10:11:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@iks-jena.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:11:58 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39647
Date: 2003-06-24T10:11:58+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

* AG wrote:
> Seriously though, what's the (*) & X semantics?

The LHS 'X' is not evaluated twice to get the parameter a of the function "&".
For the parameter b of the same function "&", 'X' is evaluated a second time.

> Is X allowed to be a function returning some access value?

Yes.

> If so, will (*) require second call to the function (with potentially
> different result) or not?

(*) is required to NOT evaluate the LHS expression once more.
Furthermore this construct is required to evaluate the LHS expression before
any part of the RHS.