Re: Lack of formal syntax undermines Ada

[John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk.nospam>]

"(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 12/04/2008 13:57, in article wccod8f1ba9.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com,
>"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>> John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk.nospam> writes:
>> 
>>> Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk.nospam> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> As I understand it, that was deliberate; Ada's feature that functions
>>>>> may not have side-effects ...
>>>> 
>>>> Ada functions can have side effects.
>>> 
>>> Bugger - where did I get that idea from then (have to admit, it's been
>>> a while since I paid a lot of attention to Ada!)
>> 
>> Perhaps from the fact that 'in out' and 'out' parameters are illegal for
>> functions.  As Robert Dewar likes to point out, the effect of this rule
>> is that functions can have side effects, so long as they are not
>> properly documented.  ;-)
>> 
>> Functions can modify global variables if they are visible.
>> Functions can also modify data via pointers.
>
>And they can call procedures or entries that can do almost anything.

Thanks to all for that clarification.

Bill - as a matter of interest, are you the "Findlay & Watt" Pascal
bloke?