From: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Valued procedures
Date: 1999/01/21
Date: 1999-01-21T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7888jd$bln$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 786pfu$1vb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
In article <786pfu$1vb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dmitry6243@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> I do not want to restart this weary thread again. Just a question: was the
> following alternative (which seems to be a good compromise with rigouristic
> point of view) ever considered:
>
> Let's allow, for instance:
>
> procedure SideEffect (X: in out State) return Boolean; -- Valid
>
> but
>
> function SideEffect (X: in out State) return Boolean; -- Invalid
To answer your question: yes, it was considered. In fact, I recall seeing
essentially your proposal in early drafts of the Ada language (around 1980 or
1981), before the standard was finalized. I don't know why this feature was
removed in the final version---perhaps someone can enlighten us? (I'm not
saying I miss this feature; I prefer not to have variables buried in the
middle of an expression changing their values, but that's just my personal
preference.)
-- Adam
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-01-21 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-01-21 0:00 Valued procedures dmitry6243
1999-01-21 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-21 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-21 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-25 0:00 ` dmitry6243
1999-01-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-21 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-01-21 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-21 0:00 ` adam [this message]
1999-01-22 0:00 ` adam
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox