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: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram Date: 1996/07/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167721251 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article 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