Re: Q: access to subprogram

[jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <dewar.836964092@schonberg> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> if you have found the critical examples or not. Note that the entertaining
> thing about Jon labeling this as a stupefuing goof is that in the message
> *just* before this one, he declared that real programs have no nesting
> anyway, and of course all this business about closures is irrelevant
> nonsense in programs that don't have any nesting!

Nah, that's not what's entertaining.  What's entertaining is that I
failed to make clear that it wasn't the actual leaving out of the
proposal that was "stupefying" but rather the purported reasons for
doing so.  Actually this isn't entertaining either - more like a goof
than anything else!  Oh, and I did _NOT_ say that closures are
irrelevant nonsense (that would just be plain stupid), I said that
most programs don't have much nesting and that without nesting no cost
is incurred and therefore any argument about distributed cost in the
user model as a reason for not having them was nonsense.  And that is
still just plain true.


/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com