Re: Lack of formal syntax undermines Ada

["(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 12/04/2008 17:25, in article kio1041hiljne2vdj9fkuvierq4bcn4til@4ax.com,
"John McCabe" <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk.nospam> wrote:

> "(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/04/2008 13:57, in article wccod8f1ba9.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com,
>> "Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk.nospam> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk.nospam> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> As I understand it, that was deliberate; Ada's feature that functions
>>>>>> may not have side-effects ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ada functions can have side effects.
>>>> 
>>>> Bugger - where did I get that idea from then (have to admit, it's been
>>>> a while since I paid a lot of attention to Ada!)
>>> 
>>> Perhaps from the fact that 'in out' and 'out' parameters are illegal for
>>> functions.  As Robert Dewar likes to point out, the effect of this rule
>>> is that functions can have side effects, so long as they are not
>>> properly documented.  ;-)
>>> 
>>> Functions can modify global variables if they are visible.
>>> Functions can also modify data via pointers.
>> 
>> And they can call procedures or entries that can do almost anything.
> 
> Thanks to all for that clarification.
> 
> Bill - as a matter of interest, are you the "Findlay & Watt" Pascal
> bloke?

Indeed I am.

Also the "Watt, Wichmann and Findlay" Ada Bloke. 8-)

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk