Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >> What's wrong is going back to the general computing world outside C and >> calling all subroutines functions. > > Now why would this be wrong (other than because you don't like it)? It > simply depends whether this distinction adds anything to the (general, that > is, non-C and non-Pascal) discussion. In the scope of our discussion, this > distinction has no meaning at all, so why put on my Pascal hat and make a > distinction, where there is no need? His distinction seems to add to the discussion. A sub that returns a value and a sub that doesn't, are of a great difference: When a value is returned, the parent sub basically says to the child sub: Do this and that and I'll be waiting for your to return something. For example: Handle this or that hardware and reply how things are done. I'll wait for the reply.) When no value is returned, the parent sub says to the child: Go and do this and that and do not bother me anymore. This is not the same as "return void". "Return void" basically means, - When you finish, let me know and I'll resume. "Do not bother me" means: "I'm working in parallel". This is the fundamental difference, especially when talking about "Loosely coupled" things. "Asynchronous" is one of the most popular words, if not the most popular in that achitecture related "Loosely coupled" discussions. When someone tries to state that this or that concept is extremely vital, he should use precise terminology at least. >> Unfortunately a lot of people can't seem to separate C specifics from >> general computing. That is definitely bad. > > And some people seem to have a need to inject their favorite's language's > features in every general discussion, be they relevant or not :) Seem to be relevant. I'm imressed. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist