X-Newsreader: Geminisoft Pimmy 3.2 Eng - www.geminisoft.com
From: "John Colagioia" <JColagioia@csi.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: what's wrong with some existing IF languages
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:02:08 -0400
References: <Xns924696F5A38E7edmewsicSPAMGUARDcom@199.45.49.11> <agfei1$l7p10$1@ID-60390.news.dfncis.de> <Xns924755A2D30A1edmewsicSPAMGUARDcom@199.45.49.11> <iain-137BC7.21103410072002@socrates.zen.co.uk> <nJ1X8.28523$5f3.16894@nwrddc01.gnilink.net> <Xns92479B14FAF54OKB@12.252.202.62> <656X8.29751$5f3.22064@nwrddc01.gnilink.net> <agitkb$qnp@dispatch.concentric.net> <Hy7X8.18$7W6.3@nwrddc02.gnilink.net> <S%7X8.311714$R61.268018@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> <He9X8.241$7W6.122@nwrddc02.gnilink.net> <eheX8.177$uw.207@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> <3D2EC4E8.80902@csi.com> <ago3kv$qo9@dispatch.concentric.net> <3d302ede@excalibur.gbmtech.net> <Nf7Y8.350287$R61.330207@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> <ZE8Y8.2379$kP6.1992@nwrddc04.gnilink.net> <3d3177cb$1@excalibur.gbmtech.net> <YGfY8.10240$IW4.4833@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
Message-ID: <3d321f25@excalibur.gbmtech.net>
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1026694949 ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net (14 Jul 2002 21:02:29 -0400)
Organization: ProNet USA Inc.
Lines: 22
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:106166

lraszewski@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 09:08:08 -0400, John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com> wrote:
>>I'd argue that it's a "routine," rather than a
>>function.  "Function" carries an assortment of
>>connotations, which I think is what brought this
>>topic to light in the first place.  To wit, C has
>>"functions;" if Inform has "functions," they should
>>work like C's.
>Maybe. On the other hand, in lots of languages, the key difference between
>a function and a routine is that a function returns a value. All
>Inform functions return a value.

Hm?  If you say so, I guess.  I've always used the word
"routine" to mean a "thematically consistent" block of
code.  That is, C routines are functions, which return
values; Pascal and Ada have both functions and those
non-returning routines they call procedures; Even BASIC
has routines, but nothing more specific (*sub*routines,
if you use GOSUB).

I suppose that could just be my overactive imagination,
though, giving things unnecessary names.
