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: 1996/07/26
Message-ID: <Dv4M9K.7Kp@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 170623252
references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com>
 <ROGOFF.96Jul23093858@sccm.Stanford.EDU> <Dv0LHw.Jq6@world.std.com>
 <ROGOFF.96Jul24163007@sccm.Stanford.EDU>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <ROGOFF.96Jul24163007@sccm.Stanford.EDU>,
Brian Rogoff <rogoff@sccm.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Anecdotal evidence, but useful.

Anecdotal is all you ever get in this business.  ;-)

>   Ada's generics can do *almost* everything that Pascal can do.  They
>   can't recurse, in Ada, like they can in Pascal.  (I needed that once.)
>   And they're verbose, as I said.
>
>Do you feel that they are the right solution though?

No.  They work in many cases, but they're not the best solution.

>   P.S. I was away for more than a week, so I may have missed some answers
>   to my question about full closures.  Did anybody answer that?
>
>Was this the "why are they any better than wrapping up the environment and 
>func in a tagged type" question?

Yes.  Not just "why are they better", but "why are the a LOT better"
(which is the claim I often hear).

- Bob