Re: Naming convention to identify functions with side effects

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com>]

How would you implement the lock in youre case? I prefer not to mess
around with semaphores, but use protected objects instead. In that
case keeping the lock across the two calls is not so trivial.

>>>>> "GB" == Georg Bauhaus <see.reply.to@maps.futureapps.de> writes:

<snip>

    GB> Some issues become more obvious in a concurrent setting
    GB> perhaps,

    GB>    Web_Page.Load ("http://www.irvine.com");

    GB>    if Web_Page.Is_Loaded then...

    GB> There needs to be a lock of some sort joining the two calls.
    GB> Otherwise, the Web_Page object might have changed
    GB> between the two calls, a logic error.
    GB> Again, it might be tempting to pack the two calls in just
    GB> one in order to hide the locking mechanism, to give the
    GB> illusion of atomicity. But shouldn't normal Ada
    GB> concurrency features be employed instead?

    GB> If concurrency features of Ada are used instead, the
    GB> naming problem is also gone:
    GB> the commands (procedures) can be verbs and the queries
    GB> (predicate functions) can be named "Is_Something" or
    GB> "Has_Something".


-- 
   C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.