Re: "procedure" vs. "function"

[PMA]

PMA wrote:
> Jacques Menu wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Yes, historically a disctinction was made between the « sub-programs »
> > that return a value and those that don’t, but the Scheme docs seem to
> > use the terms function and procedure interchangeably.
> >
> > In C++, everything is a function : a procedure is merely a function
> > that returns a value of the « void » type, i.e. no value.
> >
> > JM
> >
> > > Le 18 avr. 2015 à 18:33, David Nalesnik<address@hidden> a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Urs
> > > Liska<address@hidden<mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I just stumbled over a terminology issue: are "procedure" and
> > > "function" synonyms in Scheme or do they refer to different things?
> > >
> > > From my earliest experiences with programming I'd recall the
> > > difference to be that functions return a value and procedures don't.
> > > But that's clearly not the case in Scheme.
> > >
> > > Any enlightenment available?
> > >
> > > Well, I'm guilty of using them interchangeably...
> > >
> > > Anyway, maybe the following will help -- or add to the confusion :)
> > >
> > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/721090/what-is-the-difference-between-a-function-and-a-procedure<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/721090/what-is-the-difference-between-a-function-and-a-procedure>
> > >
> > >
> > > DN
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > lilypond-user mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lilypond-user mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> Hi List --
>
> AFAIK, of our major ancestor languages, only Pascal insisted on a
> literal working
> function-vs-procedure distinction. Did Wirth ever defend this insistence
> (as more
> than a track-keeping enforcer re value-outputting vs
> non-value-outputting code)?
>
> PMA
P.S.  Did he intend a "function" to embody purely a single mathematical
function (one too fussy to be a command primitive), or were the innards
to be open to other code as well?  And if the latter, did he consider that
a growing incorporation of such code might well smush the boundaries
of his original func-vs-proc distinction (which, clearly, hasn't caught on)?

PMA