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: 1996/07/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 163913609 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4re2ng$t7u@wdl1.wdl.loral.com> mab@dst17.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes: > If I remember right, it was felt that implementing "closures" (which is the > solution to this problem) placed an unacceptable distributed overhead > on programs that didn't use the feature. Also I think that half the then > current Ada implementations were using "static links" and the other half > were using "displays" and implementing "clousers" would have been real > difficult for one of those groups (the "display" bunch I think). I can maybe buy the second bit (about difficulty for display based impls) but the first makes no sense. You wouldn't have to pass displays or whatever in those cases where the feature wasn't being used. Which means that there is _no_ distributed overhead for the 99+% of regular ol' subprogram calls. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com