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=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!caip!nike!cad!ucbvax!vrdxhq.UUCP!drm1
From: drm1@vrdxhq.UUCP (Donn Milton)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Procedure Parameters in Ada
Message-ID: <8606091639.AA19827@vrdxhq.uucp>
Date: Mon, 9-Jun-86 12:39:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: vrdxhq.8606091639.AA19827
Posted: Mon Jun  9 12:39:23 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jun-86 00:48:17 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


	
	>Ie. for the recursion above, couldn't something like
	>
	>	type procIrec = procedure ( integer i; procIrec p ) ;
	>
	>be permissible, and also stop the expansion of the type indefinitely?
	>And, more importantly, be distinct from
	>
	>	type otherprocIrec = procedure ( integer i; procIrec p ) ;
	>
	>which is structurally, but not name, equivalent.
	>
	>?
	>
	>
	>Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.
	
I have discussed constructs like this with some people, and can't find
any real holes in the idea.  I would certainly like to see this concept
considered for Ada '88.  Unfortunately, at that point, the impact that
such an addition would have on mature Ada compilers will have to be
a major consideration.

Donn Milton