...and there are a lot more who do not think it's bad programming practice if
you treat a function as a procedure with one extra out parameter accessible
by direct assignment.
--
Vladimir Zakharychev (bob@dpsp-yes.com) http://www.dpsp-yes.com
Dynamic PSP(tm) - the first true RAD toolkit for Oracle-based internet applications.
All opinions are mine and do not necessarily go in line with those of my employer.
"Ken Denny" <ken_at_kendenny.com> wrote in message news:Xns91CBA436A8679kendenny_at_65.82.44.7...
> Richard Kuhler <noone_at_nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:NF8i8.13095$Gu6.5913606_at_typhoon.san.rr.com:
>
> > Hmmm... I'd said your statement is definitely correct depending on
> > which extra word you remove ('cannot' or 'can').
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > kazelot_at_thenut.eti.pg.gda.pl wrote:
> >>
> >> I have read that function cannot can only have 'in' parameters?
> >> Is that true?
> >>
> >> TIA,
> >> kazelot
>
> Interesting ambiguity of the English language in that either way the
> statement is incorrect.
>
> "A function cannot have only 'in' parameters." Would mean that a function
> must have at least one parameter which is not an 'in'. This is not true.
>
> "A function can have only 'in' parameters." Would mean that all parameters
> must be 'in'. This is also not true.
>
> While a function may contain 'out' or 'in out' parameters, there are some
> who believe that it is not good programming practice to use them.
>
> --
> Ken Denny
> http://www.kendenny.com/
>
> Q: How many New-Age Psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? A:
> Just one, but the bulb has to really want to change.
>
Received on Sun Mar 10 2002 - 08:46:16 CST
