Re: Idea for Ada 200x: Arguments that are procedures

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On 3 Jul 1998, Robert Dewar wrote:
> There clearly will not be an anaologous development effort for Ada 200x
> (compared to Ada 9X). FOr one thing the multi-million dollar funding
> ncessary for such an approach is not there, and second, I don't think
> anyone thinks it is appropriate at this stage.
> 
> Instead we can expect to see implementations introduce extensions that
> are genuinely useful for Ada users on a gradual basis, and if and when it
> is time for a new standard, it is more likely to be a ratification and
> refinement of such existing extensions.

This is sensible. 

> Of course this will tend to be driven by large serious users of Ada, but
> that is as it should be. There are as in any language design a large
> diverse collection of ideas from language enthusiasts (for example, there
> are some who would go FAR beyond the limited access proposal, and insist
> on full closures), but real users doing real applications are always a
> somewhat more credible source of input on what the real problems are!

Hopefully small and medium users won't be ignored. In any case, the idea 
of integrating "full" closures into an Ada targetted for the JVM is not 
entirely absurd, since you have GC there anyways, much like you added 
Unrestricted_Access since gcc uses static links anyways. 

-- Brian