Re: Constant as anonymous functions : the outer space beast is back

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 2 fév, 22:26, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> Some problems like that could be mitigated by defining overloading
> only for constants declared with an <object-declaration> that contains
> the word "constant".  I.e. *not* for loop variables, IN parameters,
> exception occurrence variables in handlers, ..............  Actually,
> I suspect that that's the kind of constant the OP was thinking of, not
> everything that the language defines as having a constant view.
>
>                                  -- Adam

If I'm the OP you were referring to, yes, I was meaning the constants
declared with the keyword Constant, not everything which have a
constant view.


..... what's an OP ? ... please


Later words : to be honest, although it would be conceptually cleaner,
this tiny lack is not as much a pain. There is the function workaround
which is just a bit more text lines to write. The reason why I've
introduced this topic, is because of the side two effects which comes
with it : required body for specifications which would not requires a
body otherwise and body elaboration required to access the full
specification. I did not meet, my self, any trouble with it, I was
just anticipating based on logical assumptions (I know in some
circumstance, elaboration order may be an issue, as well as may be the
existence of a body which some requirements may exclude).