Re: SOLVED! Decoupled Mutual Recursion Challenger

[hathawa2@muvms6.wvnet.edu (Mark S. Hathaway)]

> In article <1994Oct20.121408@di.epfl.ch>,
> Robb.Nebbe@di.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) writes:
 
>|> 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?"

It didn't look to me like a well-defined problem.  For example...

  Was it a free-standing wall or part of a room?

  If one looks around the room, is there an existing door one could use
  to exit the room (reusability)?

  If you want to go through the wall, do you have the tools sufficient
  to get through that type of material(s)?

  Was the wall only a divider inside a room that could be picked-up and
  moved; or simply walked around?

To be so close to the wall and focused on it that you can't look around
to see the rest of the environment is a myopia that could be disastrous.


Mark S. Hathaway      <hathawa2@muvms6.mu.wvnet.edu>