From: Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com>
Subject: Re: Main subprogram at library level
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:37:25 GMT
Date: 2004-03-04T00:37:25+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9Tu1c.20164$aT1.7335@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <104c8i34oc8uj59@corp.supernews.com>
Randy Brukardt wrote:
> Well, the AI proposed replacing this restriction by a bunch of others,
> intended to prevent objects of a nested type from "leaking" out into an
> outer scope (which is the real problem that has to be solved). The question
> that hasn't been really answered is whether the proposed restrictions are
> sufficient to solve the problem, and whether nested dispatching is really
> implementable.
I understand the problem. The AI sounds complicated, especially if no
one is sure it's sufficient or even possible. My proposal is at least
simple. That doesn't mean it would garner any support.
--
Jeff Carter
"You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy,
and I bet he was glad to get rid of it."
Horse Feathers
47
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-04 0:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-01 17:17 library level required or not? Marius Amado Alves
2004-03-01 23:37 ` Randy Brukardt
2004-03-02 0:21 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-03-02 2:31 ` Main subprogram at library level (was: library level required or not?) Jeffrey Carter
2004-03-02 22:37 ` Randy Brukardt
2004-03-03 1:21 ` Main subprogram at library level Jeffrey Carter
2004-03-03 7:54 ` Dale Stanbrough
2004-03-03 18:21 ` Randy Brukardt
2004-03-04 0:37 ` Jeffrey Carter [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox