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: 103376,611f4b10cbf9af69
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Redefinition of Equality (Long)
Date: 1996/09/29
Message-ID: <DyHzHy.5qA@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 186031314
references: <52hgmoINN7tg@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <52hgmoINN7tg@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
david scott gibson <dgibson@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In order to compare the elements from two sets, a redefined equality
>function must remove elements from the sets first. ...

It seems highly undesirable for "=" to modify its parameters.  If you
want to implement "=" in terms of some destructive operations, then you
ought to make a copyof the parameters first.  Why is this a problem?

I certainly agree that functions should allow 'in out' parameters, but
not so you can write evil "=" operations.  But even if 'in out' were
allowed, you would still have your problem, because for *tagged* types
an overriding operation has to be subtype conformant with what it's
overriding.

You ask why the rule about 'in out' wasn't changed.  I think it was for
two reasons: (1) Tucker was ambivalent, and was worried about
implementation difficulties (having to do copy-backs for out parameters
in the middle of an expression, rather than only at the end of a
statement, for an existing compiler that wasn't designed to do that).
(2) About half of the reviewers were rabidly anti-side-effect zealots.
Despite the fact that Ada functions allow side effects on globals, and
on stuff pointed to by parameters, this contingent believed that
preventing *some* forms of side effects (namely, on parameters) is
better than nothing.

I was very much in favor of removing this restricion.  And I've found it
frustrating when writing Ada 95 code.  I happen to think that *some*
kinds of side effects are OK, and I find it annoying that I have to use
access parameters, and put "aliased" and "'Access" all over the place.

- Bob