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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,92d1af21ade61406
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-09 10:40:52 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-047-204.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problems with 'class, help anyone?
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 19:40:29 +0100
Organization: At home
Message-ID: <aqjkri$aa1gr$3@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
References: <pan.2002.10.29.04.48.24.252092@student.liu.se>
 <3DBE2593.9080800@worldnet.att.net>
 <pan.2002.10.30.05.27.31.99377@student.liu.se>
 <3DBF9437.8090408@worldnet.att.net>
 <pan.2002.11.05.02.40.38.47887@student.liu.se>
 <3DC74F23.80308@worldnet.att.net> <u7kfs9bex.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <wcc8z07fy6d.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <3DC91DBB.C85F27E@brighton.ac.uk>
 <wccr8dxbepf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <aqg1a5$9ndb2$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <wcc1y5wi3bw.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-047-204.arcor-ip.net (145.254.47.204)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1036867251 10815003 145.254.47.204 (16 [77047])
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30660
Date: 2002-11-09T19:40:29+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> That's right, but there is a case where "function" really differs from
>> "procedure". I mean protected objects. ...
> 
> That's *another* example of basing things on a kludge.
> Certainly, it makes sense to distinguish read-only from read-write
> locking.  But to base that on "function" vs "procedure" is ...
> well, Yuck.

Absolutely

> Protected functions are *not* functions (in the maths sense),
> and therefore should not be so called.

Well, strictly speaking "+" is also not the mathematical +. Who cares. But I 
agree that protected function is not the best name for the thing.

>>... "function" vs. "procedure" for a
>> protected object could potentially mean different implementation and
>> performance. So I think that one should leave "function"s as they are,
>> and just allow procedures with results:
>> 
>>    procedure Foo (...) return Bar;
> 
> Yeah, and then eliminate the "function Foo..." syntax.
> That would solve the problem!
> 
> Slight incompatibility...  ;-)

I am not afraid of! (:-))

But we still need some keywords for:

1. Subroutine (=procedure)
2. Subroutine with no side-effects other than on the arguments (=?)
3. Subroutine with only one side-effect on the result (=?)

"function" in Ada is sort of 1. dressed as 3. (:-()

{1,2,3} is multiplied to:

A. Subroutine with no queue
B. Subroutine with a queue (entry)

Well together it makes 3x2=6 different variants!

And not to forget the "notation" axis:

i.   operational x+y
ii.  prefix (subroutines of protected objects, tasks, attributes)
iii. functional A(x,y)
iv.  aggregated (x,y,z) (should Ada have user-defined ones?)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de