Xref: utzoo comp.society.futures:2223 comp.lang.misc:5682
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: C's sins of commission
Message-ID: <5EJ64J3@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 20 Oct 90 02:50:18 GMT
References: <5006@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <64616@lanl.gov> <5088@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <2884@igloo.scum.com> <152323@felix.UUCP>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 8

In article <152323@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes:
> Nope.  C (at least) allows for variables to be 'static'.  No need
> for side-effects to maintain the function's internal state.

Those *are* side-effects, since they mean the same function may return
different values on successive calls with the same calling sequence. This
has the same effects on predictably and optimisation as more obvious side
effects.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com