Re: some trivial questions?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 06/11/2017 23:37, Robert A Duff wrote:
> tclwarrior@gmail.com writes:

>> Is there any real value in this?
> 
> Not really.  I'd prefer that both things be called "procedure".

Or function return null (:-))

> Then we wouldn't need the terms "function" and "subprogram".
> But we'd still need a distinction between procedures that
> return a value and those that don't.

And we still need distinction between them in protected objects. But 
that is the issue of conflation of dedicated output with no-effects.

> I'd also prefer that function results and 'out' parameters
> have identical semantics, which they don't in Ada.

Yes, but there are syntax problems with that:

    procedure Generate_Two_Strings (X, Y : out String);

How do I declare

    X, Y : constant String := Generate_Two_Strings;

How do I do

    2 x Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line (Generate_Two_Strings);

> But you don't want use_clauses that are
> nested deep inside some block_statement to imply a "with".

Why not?

BTW, there is no reason why "with" should not be nested. If a unit can 
depend or not on a unit so a block can. One could even invent some 
interesting elaboration rules for nested "with"s. (:-)) And in effect 
nested "with" do exist for separate bodies.

> I think nested packages and child packages should have identical
> semantics (so "with" should apply to both).  That was probably
> impossible, because child packages were invented too late.

Yes. E.g. what if nested package instantiation would not imply "with"? 
Should the similar [flawed] logic apply here as to "use"?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de