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!ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!agate!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!ncar!gatech!hubcap!billwolf
From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: procedure types
Message-ID: <4151@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 89 21:53:22 GMT
References: <5865@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP
Reply-To: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>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