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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,de7c66b71e353e40
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Valued procedures
Date: 1999/01/21
Message-ID: <7888jd$bln$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 435358917
References: <786pfu$1vb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x13.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 192.160.8.21
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 21 22:09:58 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.34 i686)
Date: 1999-01-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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