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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram
Date: 1996/07/10
Message-ID: <DuCFH9.Azv@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167642434
references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> <4rvo07$bbl@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <DuBwqD.9pE@world.std.com> <4s0qm7$htm@fu-berlin.de>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <4s0qm7$htm@fu-berlin.de>,
Thomas Wolff <wolff@inf.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>I do not quite understand your argument about who followed which design 
>choice as I thought according to this discussion both Adas cannot pass 
>procedure parameters.

Ada 83 does not.  Ada 95 does, so long as the actual procedure is not
too nested.  It's the more-nested case that we're all chatting about.

And of course Ada 83 and Ada 95 both allow passing procedures to
generics (even the nested case).  This was part of the argument -- who
needs downward closures when we have generics.  (The generic solution is
horribly verbose, in my opinion, but it does work in most cases.)

>Maybe your position was not strong enough because you thought yourself 
>the feature would require overhead?
>Can we hope you'll take up the argument when it comes to Ada 99?

Ada 99?  Maybe Ada 07 or so...  I'll be too old by then.  ;-)

- Bob