Re: In-Out Parameters for functions
From: Stephen Leake (Stephe.Leake_at_nasa.gov)
Date: 02/27/04
- Next message: Stephen Leake: "left-to-right (was In-Out Parameters for functions)"
- Previous message: Stephen Leake: "Re: left-to-right (was In-Out Parameters for functions)"
- In reply to: Robert I. Eachus: "Re: In-Out Parameters for functions"
- Next in thread: David Starner: "Re: In-Out Parameters for functions"
- Reply: David Starner: "Re: In-Out Parameters for functions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 27 Feb 2004 00:21:25 -0500 To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> writes:
> <snip 10.2.1 (18)>
>
> Can't we just all agree that Hymen is not an Ada language expert and
> doesn't want to be?
I don't think that is a fair characterization of Hymen's discussions.
> In this case, the rules of Ada are well thought out to allow any
> user, not the compiler to determine whether an "unnecessary"
> function call can be eliminated. Similarly, the language allows
> users to force syncronization points and orders of evaluation, when
> they are a necessary part of the algorithm being implemented.
Hymen is asking about the value of these rules _in practice_, and
attempting to discuss whether a slightly different set of rules might
be better for Ada.
In particular, are there any _actual compilers_ that take advantage of
the freedom given by 10.2.1 (18)?
> We have jokingly called for shooting a programmer who knowingly
> writes code that depends on order of evaluation and then--yes that
> is an Ada and then--doesn't document it or force the compiler to use
> the necessary order. Actually the correction applied would probably
> be education, warnings, bad reviews, and eventually firing the
> employee if nececssary.
>
> For anyone who deliberately persists in such bad habits, if necessary
> could be within weeks. Emphasis on deliberately, but I have had to
> make that decision for programmers who persisted in other bad habits
> like bypassing the required check-in procedures for software. In that
> case, firing the programmer probably saved him from a lynch mob, as
> other programmmers kept finding their submissions being rejected due
> to his changes not passing the regression tests.
True. And appropriate for any bad habit.
But not relevant here. The question is "would a slightly different
rule be better for Ada". Not "what are the current rules of Ada".
Although it is true that some people in this discussion need
refreshers on that ...
> What do we do with Mr. Hymen Rosen? For now, I'm going to just post
> chapter and verse, and that Mr. Rosen's opinion on any Ada language
> issue should be ignored.
ok.
-- -- Stephe
- Next message: Stephen Leake: "left-to-right (was In-Out Parameters for functions)"
- Previous message: Stephen Leake: "Re: left-to-right (was In-Out Parameters for functions)"
- In reply to: Robert I. Eachus: "Re: In-Out Parameters for functions"
- Next in thread: David Starner: "Re: In-Out Parameters for functions"
- Reply: David Starner: "Re: In-Out Parameters for functions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
