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,de7c66b71e353e40 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Valued procedures Date: 1999/01/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 435677043 Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.camb.inmet.com References: <7888jd$bln$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: adam@irvine.com wrote: : > function SideEffect (X: in out State) return Boolean; -- Invalid : To answer your question: yes, it was considered. In fact, I recall seeing : essentially your proposal in early drafts of the Ada language (around 1980 or : 1981), before the standard was finalized. I don't know why this feature was : removed in the final version---perhaps someone can enlighten us? (I'm not : saying I miss this feature; I prefer not to have variables buried in the : middle of an expression changing their values, but that's just my personal : preference.) You answered your own question. Many people "prefer not to have variables buried in the middle of an expression change their values." Ada has consistently favored readability/understandability over saving a few keystrokes. That characteristic certainly can be annoying at times, though, but it tends to be pretty pleasant a week or two after you write the code, and you are trying to remember how it works ;-) : -- Adam -- -Tucker Taft stt@averstar.com http://www.averstar.com/~stt/ Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions (www.averstar.com/tools) AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.) Burlington, MA USA