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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Constant as anonymous functions : the outer space beast is back
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:34:08 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <454c900f-85ed-4a40-ad13-a5b432261b99@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <3c43bf9d-75f1-4d09-9388-65b83cafb1d9@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<wccy6jkz46l.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <hk06bk$k8u$1@munin.nbi.dk>
	<aa6fc1b7-3a39-4510-9181-f294a0d60943@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.198.58.180
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265139248 27328 127.0.0.1 (2 Feb 2010 19:34:08
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:34:08 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.198.58.180;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8860
Date: 2010-02-02T11:34:08-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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
> =A0 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 =93
equivalent =94 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).