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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,92d1af21ade61406
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-08 05:44:39 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uunet!sea.uu.net!sac.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with 'class, help anyone?
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wcc1y5wi3bw.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:44:03 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <pan.2002.10.29.04.48.24.252092@student.liu.se>
 <3DBE2593.9080800@worldnet.att.net>
 <pan.2002.10.30.05.27.31.99377@student.liu.se>
 <3DBF9437.8090408@worldnet.att.net>
 <pan.2002.11.05.02.40.38.47887@student.liu.se>
 <3DC74F23.80308@worldnet.att.net> <u7kfs9bex.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <wcc8z07fy6d.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <3DC91DBB.C85F27E@brighton.ac.uk>
 <wccr8dxbepf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <aqg1a5$9ndb2$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30587
Date: 2002-11-08T13:44:03+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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