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,bd40601768eaf8fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Richard D Riehle <LaoXhai@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: 'constant functions' and access constant params (was Re: Array of
 Variant Records Question...)
Date: 1999/09/22
Message-ID: <7s9kvn$af0@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 528097682
References: <7r5vh3$imu1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com> <37d6a45c@news1.prserv.net>
  <eExB3.6$ZR.1146@news.wenet.net> <37d6ccb6@news1.prserv.net>
  <7r77i8$i08$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d7c116@news1.prserv.net>
  <7r8t21$ov5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d822a1@news1.prserv.net>
  <7reg02$t83@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <37DE8D09.C863CBC9@rational.com>
  <7roohh$s6r@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <37e01168@news1.prserv.net>
  <7rp86o$c6h@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <37E18CC6.C8D431B@rational.com>
  <7rs8bn$s6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <wccemfxn15s.fsf@world.std.com>
Organization: Netcom
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Sep 21 11:12:39 PM CDT 1999
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-09-21T23:12:39-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <wccemfxn15s.fsf@world.std.com>,
	Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:

>Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>      Extremism in a defense against side-effects is no vice. :-)
>
>I see the smily, but:
>
>IMHO a language design should not attempt to prevent "evil".  Instead,
>it should help the programmer mark the dangerous or questionable things
>clearly.  Eg, Unchecked_Conversion isn't evil ...

I agree that unchecked_conversion isn't evil.  Nor are the other unchecked
services provided by the language.  In fact, the very way they are provided
supports the notion of Ada's default of "safe" while permitting a designer
to relax that default when necessary.  

The default access parameters is "unsafe". I am simply suggesting that a
constant designation in the parameter list would ensure a safer implementation,
and it would tip off the client of a function that the parameter in would never
be altered in any way.

Richard