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,ec4a7355f321a22b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!nntp.giganews.com.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:34:47 -0500
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <40ACC50E.9040406@mail.usyd.edu.au>
 <mailman.1.1085073466.401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <c8itt3$gkq$1@titan.btinternet.com> <40adcdfe_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>
 <c8kti8$p07$1@titan.btinternet.com> <YIadnaE4uYUXxjPd4p2dnA@megapath.net>
 <c8luk4$29b$1@hercules.btinternet.com> <qs2dndOX7I9aEDPdRVn-gw@megapath.net>
 <c8n11h$5qi$1@hercules.btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Task discriminants
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:34:50 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
Message-ID: <vpGdnbX1YZHq9y_d4p2dnA@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-lWGkFW5rdoFSuCKD5QLtP8b5Zo5zJSI0Hq7pX4WC0egOaxUgdjTt0vztbW9jBXpjrvb1JpojeOH5don!JTGNpgybXoIooSnjwdRbL+dJYg7CYmOuqDf8EkzXPuEyiE0H6+I9lobsCrYmJbhcVpVdxnyeljXj
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:805
Date: 2004-05-24T16:34:50-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c8n11h$5qi$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:qs2dndOX7I9aEDPdRVn-gw@megapath.net...
> > "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > > Given this last statement, is it worth changing the RM to make this a
> > > Confirmation or Implementation Advice or some such?
> >
> > Well, we'd need a compelling reason to make a change here, because it's
> > possible that some implementors do use this rule to some advantage. The
> only
> > time it matters is when you have side effects during elaboration, which
is
> > generally discouraged anyway.
>
> The only thing I can think of that some users are currently taking
advantage
> of what is partically implemented! :-)
>
> Is there any compiler out that that does not do the 'right thing' - I've
certainly
> never come across one.

How would you know? Depending on side-effects in elaboration order is
dubious in any case. The only place I've ever seen discriminants initialized
by functions with side-effects is in ACATS tests - it's certainly not a
common style. And, the issue is one of optimization - an implementation
could implement elaboration in unrolled loops or the like in some cases.
Just because it works in some particular case doesn't mean that it will work
in all cases.

                         Randy.