Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!seal.cis.ohio-state.edu!ogden
From: ogden@seal.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Ogden)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: Functions without side effects (was Old confusion)
Message-ID: <135264@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 17 Jun 91 15:34:26 GMT
References: <KERS.91Jun10083811@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <1187@tetrauk.UUCP> <1991Jun14.180654.7113@newcastle.ac.uk>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Lines: 16

In article <1991Jun14.180654.7113@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
   ...
|Just to add another vision of Stack :-), mine has two operations
|        Push : Stack x Value -> Stack
|        Pop  : Stack -> Stack x Value
|where calls are denoted via equations, and updates via 's (a clumsy
|syntax, admittedly).  Then the usual procedural Push is
|        S' = Push(S,v),
   ...
Boy this version looks like it would involve a lot of gratuitous
stack copying.


--

/Bill