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: 103376,35d52809fb2aac8f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!newsfeed0.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!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: Naming convention to identify functions with side effects
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:05:36 +0100
Message-ID: <C50D28B0.FB1BD%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: 
 <5654ee5f-aa9f-4fff-87e0-45854b850f26@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
  <29ac62e1-78da-4048-ad95-8f88a29f7d31@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
  <h9civa1o39f6$.79cdhcp3sfms$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <48e13f14$0$6610$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
  <fd0ce4ptnhuoo78ecu4em6op8nv5hnj338@4ax.com>
 <ek2wg7tewjyn$.wuz3bh673et9$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <d49286ef-faa1-4b1b-8e23-0ed80c015dd2@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net nbp+1SLNj/ZB+o//ahkiEwP1N8RerwJKFGUFOGKEIoAAxeAYB2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Npxiq5NIvcn/2vDPrSELlPSN8eo=
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.12.0.080729
Thread-Topic: Naming convention to identify functions with side effects
Thread-Index: AckmIeQiAmJ3a9OylU68Ep70RaJOuA==
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7958
Date: 2008-10-04T14:05:36+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 04/10/2008 13:30, in article
d49286ef-faa1-4b1b-8e23-0ed80c015dd2@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "Marco"
<prenom_nomus@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 3, 5:28 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
>> Side-effects are bad in any subprograms, be them functions or procedures.
> 
>   Technically "side-effects" are being used whenever you change an
> internal state in a module, which is not always undesired.

These are not "side-effects", they are just effects.
The whole point of using computers is to cause changes of state.

> proper expression is "unrelated side-effects are bad" which violates
> the Principle of Least Surprise.

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