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,ad988eb0a9545c86
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-14 09:28:04 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!RENT.THIS.SPACE.FOR.ADVERTISING!unlisys!news.snafu.de!not-for-mail
From: Michael Erdmann <michael.erdmann@snafu.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problem trying to implement generics.
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:28:22 +0200
Organization: [Posted via] Inter.net Germany GmbH
Message-ID: <3AD87AA6.461AD0CF@snafu.de>
References: <9b46dr$cd8$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
 <PgmB6.11956$ix4.9222255@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>
 <9b6jtu$4is$2@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
 <PDAB6.10174$FD1.1166748@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
 <9b6m27$68e$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
 <0JBB6.10484$FD1.1197250@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
 <9b7tce$laf$2@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> <wccbsq0cslt.fsf@world.std.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104131658480.17102-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <9b85fj$25r$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104131834070.17102-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <3AD858A3.3070803@elros.cbb-automation.de>
 <9b9qjc$nk9$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ns09-n66-203.de.inter.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [de] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i486)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6893
Date: 2001-04-14T18:28:22+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ayende Rahien schrieb:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de> wrote in message
> news:3AD858A3.3070803@elros.cbb-automation.de...
> >
>
> > >
> > > You're right, it shouldn't be too big of a deal for you. And I doubt it
> > > will ever change in any future version of Ada, since enough people seem
> > > to really like this restriction.
> >
> > Well, but what I still cannot understand, what is the objection against
> > *procedures* returning a value:
>
> Because that is the difference between functions & procedures?
> If you wanted it that way, you could do this:
> function Foo(...) return nothing;
>
> But I agree that it would be nice to be able to ignore function's return
> value.
>

I  dont agree on this.  Ada is everything about security, the compiler
shall be able to warn you, that you have forgotten to evaluate the
return value of a function!

Rgeards
  M.Erdmann