From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.eiffel:98 comp.lang.ada:2184 comp.lang.c++:2794
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!cantuar!greg
From: greg@cantuar.UUCP (G. Ewing)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: First Class Routines [Long again]
Message-ID: <1070@cantuar.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 89 01:12:38 GMT
References: <114@eiffel.UUCP> <112@eiffel.UUCP> <1297@wasatch.UUCP> <118@eiffel.UUCP>
Reply-To: greg@cantuar.UUCP (G. Ewing)
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.