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,a00006d3c4735d70
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-19 13:57:33 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.bbnplanet.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.71.34.3!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems
Date: 19 Jan 2004 16:57:32 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccptdf38kz.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <5802069.JsgInS3tXa@linux1.krischik.com>
 <1072464162.325936@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <1563361.SfB03k3vvC@linux1.krischik.com>
 <11LvOkBBXw7$EAJw@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> <3ff0687f.528387944@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <1086072.fFeiH4ICbz@linux1.krischik.com> <3ff18d4d.603356952@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <1731094.1f7Irsyk1h@linux1.krischik.com> <3ff1b8ef.614528516@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <3FF1E06D.A351CCB4@yahoo.com> <3ff20cc8.635997032@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <bsumbs$k9e$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <3ff9df16.30249104@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <mailman.212.1073342204.31149.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <J6zKb.1$p33.0@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <vsfetb.dnq.ln@skymaster>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1074549452 23379 192.74.137.185 (19 Jan 2004 21:57:32
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:57:32 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4556
Date: 2004-01-19T16:57:32-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:

> > "Stephen Leake" <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message
> > news:mailman.212.1073342204.31149.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org...
> > Apparently there were some people on the design team for Ada 83 who
> > thought "function" meant "no side effects", and want to "enforce"
> > that. Of course, functions can have side effects; now they just have
> > to lie about it!
> I've seen this argument quite often (especially by RBKD), but it is totally bogus.
> Nobody claimed that functions should not have side effects, but only that functions compute a result given some parameters and the
> global state of the program. It was felt that it was OK for a function to modify the global state, but modifying the parameters
> would be surprising and error-prone.

Why would modifying parameters be more surprising than modifying
globals?

- Bob