Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!world!bobduff
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Comparison of languages for CS1 and CS2
Message-ID: <DBI489.4L8@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <3srsn5$q8d@galaxy.ucr.edu> <3tkt5u$3vk@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <DBEwuo.8L@world.std.com> <dewar.805306961@gnat>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:02:32 GMT
Lines: 15
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.edu:13140 comp.lang.ada:32349 comp.lang.c++:137547 comp.lang.modula2:11945 comp.lang.scheme:13063

In article <dewar.805306961@gnat>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>The reason that I do not buy Bob Duff's concerns over the freedom that
>Ada compilers have in passing parameters by copy or reference is that these
>rules are copied from Fortran (for good reasons), and in Fortran, I have
>never known it be a significant problem, even though, technically and
>from a language lawyer point of view, Fortran has all the flaws that 
>Bob worries about in connection with Ada.

This is a good point.  But it's worth pointing out that Fortran doesn't
have exceptions.  (Well, I don't know Fortran 90.)

Also, I don't believe the Ada rules exactly match the Fortran rules.
My understanding is that Fortran says that the compiler can assume
there's no aliasing of parameters, which is not exactly what Ada
says.
