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: 2004-01-09 14:10:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems Date: 09 Jan 2004 17:10:23 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1073686223 32702 192.74.137.185 (9 Jan 2004 22:10:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:10:23 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4271 Date: 2004-01-09T17:10:23-05:00 List-Id: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" writes: > Robert A Duff wrote: > > Calling them "function" is therefore misleading. > > No. It may be misleading for little schoolgirls and for computer science > students, pity for them. but for nobody else. Well, it seems to mislead a lot of people into thinking that functions should not have 'in out' parameters. ;-) >... The main association for notion > of function is presence of explicit single result. True, although there are a few languages that allow functions to return multiple results. >... All other is secondary and > may vary according to local conventions. Note that the word "function" was > used (before programming emerged) outside of mathematics (or physics) quite > heavily, and those functions certainly weren't "pure". That's a good point. As in, "the function of a car is to provide transportation." > So try "subprogram" as that single name, and perhaps you'll see the result > better then if you imagine "procedure" there. I don't much like the term "subprogram". I'm not sure I can explain why. - Bob