Re: Problems with 'class, help anyone?

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"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.

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

>... "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...  ;-)

- Bob