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=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9c41ceb9ae09ec6d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-11 14:31:01 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA FUNCTIONS TO PROCEDURES Date: 11 Mar 1995 16:24:02 -0600 Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 968 5800 Message-ID: <3jt7u2$83o@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <3jqjbp$im7@news.rain.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com Date: 1995-03-11T16:24:02-06:00 List-Id: In article , James A. Krzyzanowski wrote: >Henri Altarac (haltarac@rain.org) wrote: > >: In some (strange) coding standard I saw, they required that >: function should not have any side effects. Procedure could. > >What's so strange about that? At Magnavox, we DO have that as a coding >standard! I think he was implying it was strange because it required it in a strict sense (?). We have the "No side effect" rule in our standard too, but it's immediately followed up with a statement that one MAY break the rule if 1) it provides a more readable product, 2) it is a "safe" usage ( a good example is the state of a random number generator), and 3) It passes a code review of peers and at least one "expert" -- Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran? Ada95 _might_ be for you! For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command: "finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)