Re: Lack of formal syntax undermines Ada

Robert A Duff <bobduff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>John McCabe <john@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>> As I understand it, that was deliberate; Ada's feature that functions
>> may not have side-effects ...
>
>Ada functions can have side effects.

Bugger - where did I get that idea from then (have to admit, it's been
a while since I paid a lot of attention to Ada!)

>>...means that whether Y is a function or an
>> array is irrelevant to the user as long as the result is valid. It is
>> also related to the separation of interface from implementation. Write
>> the implementation as an array to start with, e.g. for unit test
>> purposes, then it can be replaced with a function without having to
>> change the client who uses this interface.
>
>Right, that's the theory.  But it only works for some functions, and
>some arrays.

Of course, but in principle....

Thanks Bob