Re: Constant as anonymous functions : the outer space beast is back

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 30 jan, 09:45, AdaMagica <christoph.gr...@eurocopter.com> wrote:
> And even if you make Count a function (overloadable), this example
> code is still illegal in Ada as is - and that's a good thing.
>
> package P is
>   function Count return Float;
> end P;

Yes, because the Count loop variant still hide the one from P.

That's the proof there would be no bad side effects to make the “
equivalent ” constant overloadable the same way.

If it's not good for constants, so why should it be good for
functions ?
Reciprocally, if it's Ok for functions, why wouldn't it be good for
constants ?

What's the rational underlying this distinction between constants as
functions ? Isn't it just a matter of implementation after all ? I see
implementation differences, no any semantic ones (I know some
implementation choices have legitimately semantic side effects, but
this one should not, unless there are opposite arguments which I do
not know about).