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: 1996/07/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 163403344 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > During the design of Ada 9X, we proposed a SAFE way of taking 'Access of > more-deeply-nesting subprograms. To this day, I remain astonished and > sad that this particular feature didn't make it into Ada 95. After > all, even Pascal has that feature! And GNU C, which allows nested > functions (unlike standard C) allows this feature. Bob, Is there an "elevator version" of why people didn't want this in? Tucker, if you are reading this, what swayed you to not let this in???? It's not one of those things that bothers me all that much (well, it hasn't) but it is indeed curious... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com