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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f188b1cd9c1f24dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Parameter evaluation order
Date: 1998/04/09
Message-ID: <x7vemz7xncq.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 342693462
References: <6g9d2o$tfg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <matthew_heaney-ya023680000504982157020001@news.ni.net>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 892200085 nnrp-02:7841 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
Organization: At Home
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


matthew_heaney@acm.org (Matthew Heaney) writes:

> No, this is not a bug.  The language does not mandate an order of
> evaluation of parameters.
> 
> There is a very simple fix:
> 
> declare
>    Arg1 : constant Arg1Type := Func_One;
>    Arg2 : constant Arg2Type := Func_Two;
> begin
>    proc (Arg1, Arg2);
> end;

I was wondering if, because the order need arises from [invisible?]
side-effects, a compiler might be allowed to reorder the declarations;
but 3.11(7) says

The elaboration of a declarative_part consists of the elaboration of
the declarative_items, if any, in the order in which they are given in
the declarative_part.