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: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Valued procedures
Date: 1999/01/25
Message-ID: <78igrb$3g9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 436727869
References: <786pfu$1vb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <787gb8$kp2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <78hddd$8in$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x7.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 25 19:31:55 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-01-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <78hddd$8in$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dmitry6243@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> adam@irvine.com wrote:
> Now imagine that instead of burying the search state in
> invisible globals you would like to expose it as an IN
> OUT parameter ...
>
> I agree that in a carefully designed program procedures
> with return values would be rare. As well as gotos which
> are allowed.
>
> I agree that they are clumsy (in most cases), but the
> alternative is pointers, which are much more worse.
>
> Regards,
> Dmitry Kazakov

Dmitry, you should really go and look at the archives for
previous threads here. This is a subject that has been
discussed to death, and it is unlikely you have anything
new to say (so far you don't!)

By the way I agree with your position, but this is a well
discussed issue, and absent new arguments, nothing will
change in this area.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own