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: 1996/07/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167462638 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Jon said > > "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." > > If you buy the second bit, and if you agree that displays are more > efficient than static links for Ada programs (which is not gospel, > it requires discussion and examination -- I certainly think it is > the case), then the first bit is a consequence, since the provision > of closures would push you away from using displays, and hence > introduce distributed overhead -- that was what was being talked about. I don't see how, as most programs will not have _any_ nesting. Period. So displays or static links are irrelevant for nearly all cases. So, the issue is irrelevant to [probably not even hyperbole here] 99+% of subprogram calls. Which means that there really is no distributed overhead (at least not as I understand the term). /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com