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-Thread: 103376,1552407353207252 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Range constraints on subprogram parameters? Date: 01 Oct 2005 10:41:08 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1128177668 28108 192.74.137.71 (1 Oct 2005 14:41:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:41:08 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5325 Date: 2005-10-01T10:41:08-04:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff writes: > Elaboration of the body would not call F. (Of course, if there's no > explicit spec, you need to elaborate an implicit one at the place of the > body.) On the third hand, default expressions are not evaluated during elaboration of the spec, nor during elaboration of the body -- they're evaluated on every call. Is _that_ confusing? - Bob