Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!fs
From: fs@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why not multiple out parameters? [again]
Message-ID: <4019@rex.cs.tulane.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 90 16:58:19 GMT
References: <1990Aug28.203643.11214@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu> <DWIGGINS.90Aug30195906@atsun.a-t.com> <11831@ogicse.ogi.edu>
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Lines: 24


In article <11831@ogicse.ogi.edu>
dinucci@ogicse.ogi.edu (David C. DiNucci) writes:
>
>	... at higher "system" levels
>	modules are being composed which each do a fair amount of work,
>	and thus are likely to return many different kinds of results.
>	Plugging these results into a record structure
>	just so they can be pulled back apart again is nonproductive.

When a collection of diverse of values
forms a single conceptual unit,
it should be treated as a unit within the program.
Therefore we define a record-type to represent the concept,

If a module's different kinds of results
do _not_ form a conceptual unit,
then the design is kludgy and should be redone.
What ever happened to the idea that every module
should perform a single conceptual operation
(i.e. produce a single conceptual result)?

	Frank Silbermann	fs@rex.cs.tulane.edu
	Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisianna  USA