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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: "functional" programming in Ada
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:35:52 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <p7m908$rel$2@dont-email.me>
References: <p7luc6$fu7$1@dont-email.me> <p7m3uo$c05$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:35:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="e9fdd27e595df73021fee87838b0b638";
	logging-data="28117"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19in9YuXcqYcm6LPhRKR4Ci"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
In-Reply-To: <p7m3uo$c05$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n4CpWlJtngkp/ipoEzafy82EDr8=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50842
Date: 2018-03-06T15:35:52+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 06/03/18 14:09, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 06/03/2018 12:34, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote:
>> In a recent project I've started using in full if/case expressions and 
>> expression functions... and I'm a bit scared at the amount of use I 
>> have for them. I'm using these constantly.
> 
> That is how wrong ideas become most popular ones.

Do you find something inherently wrong, or is this particular 
implementation you object to?

>> Pros: purely recursive functions are really fun to write. If/case 
>> expressions, used sparingly, do help a lot in having constant 
>> declarations in local scopes. I'm writing more code in declarative parts.
>>
>> Cons: the temptation of writing function bodies in the spec is too 
>> big. At least I try to keep them in the private part, but I've found 
>> myself trying to force an expression function just to avoid a package 
>> body.
>>
>> Care to share your experiences?
> 
> Better not to have any.

:-)