Path: news.cs.au.dk!not-for-mail From: Morten Grouleff Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta Subject: Re: Am I missing something obvious Date: 23 Oct 2000 11:59:14 -0000 Organization: University of Aarhus, Department of Computer Science (DAIMI) Lines: 27 Approved: mailtonews@cs.au.dk Distribution: world Message-ID: <20001023115914.20462.qmail@noatun.mjolner.dk> Reply-To: Morten Grouleff NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.au.dk X-Trace: gjallar.cs.au.dk 972302364 5731685 130.225.16.1 (23 Oct 2000 11:59:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@cs.au.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:59:24 +0000 (UTC) Xref: news.cs.au.dk comp.lang.beta:12607 Atle writes: [...] > 1 -> &sample.proc > > and explains that the & executes the proc patterns, and had I used > &proc[] then it would not have been executed, but created and a > reference returned. > > I find this completely logical and OK. But, I went back to my sample > programs, and noticed that I had forgotten the & in front of every > procedure and function pattern I had written, and they all work as > expected. > > So my question is: Have I overlooked somethng obvious? Are my programs > wrong, and if they are, why do they work? The '&' is not needed in practice in this situation, as the compiler generates the same code with the '&' as without it. Keep writing the '&' if it makes you happy ;) Regards, -- Morten Grouleff, M.Sc., Software Engineer, Mjølner Informatics. Phone: +45 70274343. Fax: +45 70274344 Web: