Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Comments on Terms for types of functions with respect to side effects

Parent

Terms for types of functions with respect to side effects

+5
−0

Mathematically, the purpose of a function is to return an output. However, in a programming context functions often have side effects. It is even common to call functions for the side effects alone. The classic example is print(x), which has a useful side effect and no output.

It seems to me that we can taxonomize functions into five classes based on human expectations about their outputs and side effects:

  1. Functions with no side effects, where the output is most interesting
  2. Functions with side effects, but the output is most interesting
    • Technically, all functions are like this, because running things on the computer always has side effects like using up CPU and RAM.
  3. Functions with an output, but the side effect is more interesting than the output
    • Example: request(url, type="POST") - the output is only a detail if we care to check whether the request succeeded, which may even be irrelevant in some cases
  4. Functions with no output, executed for their side effects
  5. Functions with no output or side effect to speak of (usually created for testing or as placeholders)

Is there a terminology for these classes?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Original research is fine :) (1 comment)
Post
+5
−1

I don't think there are any formal names for the various versions you list.

First of all, please note that output in a programming context most often refers to printing something on a screen or to a file, or updating graphics. "Function output" is not a common programming term - almost every language instead terms such function return value or perhaps "result".

That being said, some semi-formal, widely accepted "language-agnostic" terms do exist:

  • Procedure or subroutine often refers to functions which do not return anything. I think this might originate from Pascal and/or Ada. C family languages tend not to use either of these terms but call everything functions.

  • Re-entrant refers to a function which can be safely used in a multi-thread program, because it has no side effects.

  • Thread-safe refers to a function which can be safely used in a mult-thread program. It has side effects, but those are guarded with semaphore/mutex or similar.

  • No-op is often used informally to describe functions which do not perform anything and have no side effects. Likely originating from the common assembler nop instruction (no operation, do nothing).

  • Member function or method is something that interacts with a given object. It may have side effects, including updating the object data.

Many OO languages also support "read-only" member functions, which are guaranteed not to modify the current object (but may contain other side effects). Immutable objects is another common term used for objects that are never modified after creation - and so a function taking an immutable object as parameter cannot/will not modify that object (but may contain other side effects).

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Not the definition of "reentrant" (3 comments)
Not the definition of "reentrant"
Derek Elkins‭ wrote 9 months ago

Reentrancy definitely does not mean a function has no side-effects, let alone that it is thread-safe because it has no side-effects. Indeed, the archetypal example of a procedure you'd want to be reentrant is an interrupt service routine triggered by an external device which must perform side-effects to accomplish anything meaningful.

Reentrant just means a procedure can be "entered again", i.e. an new invocation (in the same "context") can occur during an earlier invocation, and both still behave correctly. This is somewhat similar to recursion, and indeed re-entrant and recursive procedures have similar constraints, but reentrancy implies an uncoordinated re-invocation of the procedure.

Either way, reentrancy is a fairly low-level and maybe even archaic term. I don't think it's worth mentioning in this context.

Lundin‭ wrote 9 months ago

Derek Elkins‭ In this context, a function can return a value and that is the expected outcome. Other things changing the program or environment are side effects. An interrupt is never re-entrant because it always has side effects. It may be "thread safe" or interrupt safe might be a better name in that situation. Also different ISA may or may not allow interrupts to be nested (interrupt each other).

It is custom on hosted systems to separate "re-entrant" and "thread-safe" as two different terms, but admittedly it is quite muddy, as is anything "language agnostic". It is never the less a commonly used term in all manner of systems.

Derek Elkins‭ wrote 9 months ago

Do you have an example of "re-entrant" being used this way, e.g. a link to a place where it is used this way? I have never heard "re-entrant" to mean "has no side-effects" and would never use it that way myself as it would be unclear and confusing. While far from perfect, the Wikipedia page more or less agrees with my understanding and does not suggest any alternative reading where "reentrant" implies "side-effect free", though the implication the other way can certainly happen.