Re: Function definitions - with clarification

[Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com>]

On 22-Jun-14 12:03, montgrimpulo wrote:
> Direct reply to Shark8
>
> What is the point of saying "the above won't work" when it was
> obviously forgotten to indicate a type?

That's exactly the point.
If you're giving us incorrect stuff then it's hard to determine what 
your intent really is. This is opposed to either writing out psudo-code 
OR non-compiling code within otherwise syntactically-correct code [i.e 
"what's the syntax for..."].

IOW, the intent is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for others 
to understand/help.

To further clarify, there's the high-level intent of problem 
description, which you've given; but there's also the intent with 
respect as to how you are going to implement the solution. (As I pointed 
out earlier, you could have used generic-parameters on your solution OR 
discriminated record. Both are equally valid for a solution.)

> What is the point of changing my
> function F into a procedure F with an embedded procedure G ?

To show that there are different scopes and you cannot have a name infer 
types from outer scopes... which is what it really looked like you were 
trying to do by having the discriminants w/o type.

(It's also a bad idea for you to be relying on parameter/variable values 
in type/subtype definitions, until you really understand the implications.)

> This does not make sense at all.
> What is then left as your contribution?

If you don't want my help, you don't have to take it.