From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Subject: Re: procedure types
Date: 19 Jan 89 21:53:22 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4151@hubcap.UUCP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5865@medusa.cs.purdue.edu
From article <5865@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, by rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway):
>> My idea was that if for example a procedure referenced an externally
>> defined variable X, then that and all other externally referenced
>> objects should form part of the procedure's specification. [...]
>
> Your approach appears to use dynamic binding of the procedural variables
> environment; do you think this approach is better than the usual static
> binding rules of Ada objects?
If procedural variables are to exist, yes. If there are no procedural
variables, then the dynamic binding would not be necessary, but the
other advantages would remain.
I'm not yet convinced that there's a need for procedural variables,
and I'd like to see an example of where the "active objects" Barry
talked about would be appropriate; if you can give such an example
of a realistic situation in which procedural variables are intuitively
natural and necessary, then the cost of dynamic binding might be justified.
Bill Wolfe
wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1989-01-19 21:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1989-01-19 9:27 procedure types Mats Weber
1989-01-19 18:07 ` William Thomas Wolfe,2847,
1989-01-19 19:55 ` Bob Hathaway
1989-01-19 21:53 ` William Thomas Wolfe,2847, [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1989-01-09 12:37 Mats Weber
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox