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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,93fa00d728cc528e
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,93fa00d728cc528e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-20 08:06:19 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!mv!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!dinews.epfl.ch!di.epfl.ch!Robb.Nebbe
From: Robb.Nebbe@di.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Subject: Re: SOLVED! Decoupled Mutual Recursion Challenger
Date: 20 Oct 1994 11:25:42 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Sender: nebbe@lglsun3.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Oct20.121408@di.epfl.ch>
References: <1994Oct12.224944.25566@swlvx2.msd.ray.com>
 <1994Oct17.205244.17450@swlvx2.msd.ray.com> <Cxu8A0.Fvp@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <1994Oct18.221751.15457@swlvx2.msd.ray.com> <CxwAuy.1CL@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <38289r$79m@oahu.cs.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lglsun3.epfl.ch
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Keywords: Ada9X, "withing" problem, CORBA, IDL
Xref: bga.com comp.lang.ada:7123 comp.object:7603
Date: 1994-10-20T11:25:42+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <38289r$79m@oahu.cs.ucla.edu>, jmartin@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Jay Martin) writes:
|> With all these ugly workarounds it looks like we must have a
|> language extension to Ada to handle mutual dependencies.
|> Otherwise Ada9x is a "joke".  Of course if there is no way that Ada
|> will be extended quickly, it will be a "joke" anyway.  Hopefully C++
|> has taught language designers/standardizers something.
|> 

As an analogy consider a wall as representing a programming problem
and a language as providing a way to get to the other side. What you
have seen is a lot of "ugly workarounds" to go through the wall.
I saw at least one suggestion to go over the wall and another to
go around the wall but both were refused. Why? because the goal
had ceased being "getting to the other side" but instead had become
"going through the wall".

- Robb Nebbe

P.S. the fact that some langauges provide a tool that will cut a
hole in the wall and install a door to the otherside may lead
some to believe that it is a good idea to go through the wall.
They must first answer the question "Why was the wall there in
the first place?"