Re: Functions vs constants

[Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>]

Niklas Holsti wrote:

> On 14-07-22 00:18 , Victor Porton wrote:
>> Isn't the following a mis-design of Ada?
>> 
>> Constants in a good programming language should be equivalent to
>> argument- less functions which return these constants.
> 
> Possibly, for some personal concept of "good".
> 
>> However, in Ada functions can be overloaded by their return type, while
>> constants cannot.
>> 
>> Mad idea
> 
> Why mad?

Because my idea looks like as something unreliable. (However it should not 
be quickly dismissed by this argument, because the same argument could apply 
to overloading functions.)

>>, but I propose it: Make in a future specification of Ada constants
>> overloadable (moreover, make constants argument-less functions).
> 
> Others have also suggested this, and even wider overloading (including
> variables). Arguments against the idea relied on subjective opinion, if
> I remember correctly.
> 
> I do not see a pressing need to make constants (or variables)
> overloadable. If I want to overload constants, I define overloaded
> functions which return those constants. As for variables, they are
> nearly always so local that overloading seems overkill.

The idea of overloading constants comes from the use case, when I have one 
constant and after revising my source code want to make two overloaded 
entities with that name instead of one. This would require me first to 
replace the existing constant with a function, and this step looks quite 
ridiculous for me (when I add something to the program, the old code should 
not need modifications).

I agree that overloading variables is an overkill. (And I do not know any 
language where vars can be overloaded.)

But the idea to make constants a kind of functions is viable.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org