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
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!gatech!hubcap!billwolf
From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Procedure types and dynamic binding
Message-ID: <4071@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 89 22:54:53 GMT
References: <35339@think.UUCP>
Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP
Reply-To: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From article <35339@think.UUCP>, by barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin):
> Procedure variables are hardly a research topic these days.  They've
> been in production use for decades.  

    The Rationale for the Design of Ada lists it as a research topic
    which was not sufficiently well-understood at the time (particularly
    in terms of efficient implementations) to be acceptable for inclusion.

    Additionally, Paul N. Hilfinger, one of the designers of Ada, discussed
    procedural variables in his ACM Distinguished Dissertation; last I
    heard, dissertations were considered research.

    I haven't done an extended investigation of the literature, but
    procedural variables in Algol-family languages would appear to
    be a research topic, or at least would seem to have recently
    been such a topic.


                                        Bill Wolfe

                                 wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu