From: greg@cantuar.UUCP (G. Ewing)
Subject: Re: First Class Routines [Long again]
Date: 14 Mar 89 01:12:38 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1070@cantuar.UUCP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 118@eiffel.UUCP
Bertrand Meyer (bertrand@eiffel.UUCP) writes:
> One way to summarize this discussion is to say that I do not know of any
>good way to reconcile the following three language traits:
>
> 1. Routine arguments (in the above sense, i.e. routine arguments to
> routines).
> 2. Static type checking.
> 3. A language design that makes it possible to have separate
> compilation of modules.
What about Modula-II? As far as I can see, it copes quite well with all
three of these.
Note that I'm not questioning your choice to leave routine arguments
out of Eiffel. I just don't see where the necessary conflict arises
between these three things.
Greg Ewing Internet: greg@cantuar.uucp
Spearnet: greg@nz.ac.cantuar Telecom: +64 3 667 001 x8357
UUCP: ...!{watmath,munnari,mcvax,vuwcomp}!cantuar!greg
Post: Computer Science Dept, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Disclaimer: The presence of this disclaimer in no way implies any disclaimer.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1989-03-14 1:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <114@eiffel.UUCP>
[not found] ` <112@eiffel.UUCP>
[not found] ` <1297@wasatch.UUCP>
1989-03-12 7:30 ` First Class Routines [Long again] Bertrand Meyer
1989-03-12 19:04 ` Pierre Jouvelot
1989-03-14 1:12 ` G. Ewing [this message]
1989-03-14 18:44 ` First Class Routines [Not long this time] Dave Berry
1989-03-16 19:30 ` First Class Routines [Long again] Henk Cazemier
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox