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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3a1c64628a09855b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Lack of formal syntax undermines Ada
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:55:14 +0100
Message-ID: <C426B612.E44E0%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: 
 <e99fb94d-da10-41d2-9f20-7a6ce78d4613@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <cllvv31u9rb9uk0qaom4km6gl4v5a6s0gs@4ax.com>
 <wccmyo0awws.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <i0qvv3dev17eh98a6bpunaf0ur5o8d33tc@4ax.com>
 <wccod8f1ba9.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <C4268E95.E448A%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <kio1041hiljne2vdj9fkuvierq4bcn4til@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net q3TThiXXTrryM3Y/mljyAAfSJcyiVj0kuY70sOLHAlwnpUu4Tt
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zfC1lTOkEWDnK+XtcICEYWSo+ts=
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.1.0.080305
Thread-Topic: Lack of formal syntax undermines Ada
Thread-Index: Acicxlvw9VoCI2daRkOUok6rmx/r3Q==
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20893
Date: 2008-04-12T18:55:14+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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