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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2907a68906511623
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Idea for Ada 200x: Arguments that are procedures
Date: 1998/07/04
Message-ID: <1998Jul4.094458.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 368662479
References: <6nh9f0$66i@netline.jpl.nasa.gov> <swhalenEvI788.43x@netcom.com>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980703105626.24708B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <swhalenEvJBCC.6Er@netcom.com>
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
X-Trace: news.decus.org 899559907 10968 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <swhalenEvJBCC.6Er@netcom.com>, swhalen@netcom.com (Steve Whalen) writes:

> I agree completely.  Either dump shared generics (because *I* don't
> often/ever? need them <g>) or add another piece of programmer control
> syntax to "limited" (maybe "limited controlled?") That way the programmer
> can "promise" the compiler that the procedure pointer REALLY won't be
> abused/confused and permit downward closure of procedure pointers.

I have not been following this, but I look to Ada for an environment
in which the programmer can "assert" but the compiler will verify.

I believe features where the programmer tells the compiler "trust me"
should have ugly names from the UNCHECKED_* series.

Larry Kilgallen