Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <6638@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 23 Oct 89 15:14:21 GMT
References: <1989Oct21.070728.8750@utzoo.uucp> <14105@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 24

In article <14105@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I think you will have
> to agree that the value of [side effect] operators is at best a subjective
> assessment and is _not_ "well established".

The question of side-effect operators is really a question of side-effects
in expressions. If you ban side-effects in expressions, you've got to ban
side effects in functions as well. Not just declare them, ban them altogether.
It's obviously too dangerous to allow propgrammers to use anything other
than pure functions.

If you believe this I'd suggest you look into topics like object-oriented
languages, languages with generators, and so on. There you will find your
established literature supporting side-effects.

And in the meantime you can write "SAFE C" programs, merely by adhering to
the restrictions inherent in your preferred languages. Everyone is happy.
And we can go back to important questions like acessing the VGA from Turbo
C.
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"I feared that the committee would decide to go with their previous        'U`
 decision unless I credibly pulled a full tantrum." -- dmr@alice.UUCP