From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Main subprogram at library level
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:21:27 -0600
Date: 2004-03-03T12:21:27-06:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <104c8i34oc8uj59@corp.supernews.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7qa1c.16379$yZ1.8619@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net
"Jeffrey Carter" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:7qa1c.16379$yZ1.8619@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> > AI-344 proposes to remove the restriction altogether. Certainly a better
> > idea than eliminating it in one weird place...
>
> Eliminating it altogether, if possible, would be nice. I was coming from
> the position that the restriction is necessary. If it's not necessary,
> why do we have it?
Well, the AI proposed replacing this restriction by a bunch of others,
intended to prevent objects of a nested type from "leaking" out into an
outer scope (which is the real problem that has to be solved). The question
that hasn't been really answered is whether the proposed restrictions are
sufficient to solve the problem, and whether nested dispatching is really
implementable.
Randy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-03 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-01 17:17 library level required or not? Marius Amado Alves
2004-03-01 23:37 ` Randy Brukardt
2004-03-02 0:21 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-03-02 2:31 ` Main subprogram at library level (was: library level required or not?) Jeffrey Carter
2004-03-02 22:37 ` Randy Brukardt
2004-03-03 1:21 ` Main subprogram at library level Jeffrey Carter
2004-03-03 7:54 ` Dale Stanbrough
2004-03-03 18:21 ` Randy Brukardt [this message]
2004-03-04 0:37 ` Jeffrey Carter
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox