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@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram Date: 1996/07/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 170039375 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > In article , > Brian Rogoff wrote: > >Hi Bob, > > Hi Brian, > > > While this is now straying a bit from Ada 95, > > Indeed. I hope people don't get too annoyed at us for discussing > general language design stuff. I hope not. This is good stuff. There aren't many places on the net where you can find this sort of discussion. > >.. I'm curious as to > >whether you find Pascal style iterators using downward funargs (there, I'm > >using Lisp terminology) superior to CLU/Sather-1.0 style iterators. > > No. When I was a Pascal programmer many years ago, I used > procedures-as-params a lot for iterators. But CLU iterators are clearly > superior. I don't know Sather, but from what I've read, they seem even > more superior. Sather iterators (IMO) are pretty clearly about as kewl as iterators get. They are _extremely_ flexible and can be combined in arbitrary ways (basically allowing you to "snap together" new iterators from the ones you have in your bag - the ones provided in the class definitions). I'd also recommend the Sather Iterator Technical Report paper on the Sather home page: http://http.icsi.berkeley.edu/Sather/ > >how do the Ada 95 alternatives stack up? > > Not very well, I'm afraid. You can use generics, but you end up with a > lot of verbose junk for some simple things. Sigh. Agreed. They are more or less "good enough"... > 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? I don't recall even seeing it. I've been noticing lately that several posts from various people (including myself) have not "got out"... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com