From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Access to procedures
Date: 1999/06/27
Date: 1999-06-27T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906270946040.19516-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7l4agm$hn0$1@news.gate.net
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, David Botton wrote:
> I don't believe he was looking to use it as part of his code, but rather as
> an option for test drivers or those that wish to use his packages.
>
> Any serious code is going to include library level functions, etc that would
> eliminate a need for Unrestricted_Access.
I could find lots of uses for nested function arguments. There are
workarounds in standard Ada; lifting the subprograms to library level,
smuggling (good one je!) access types to the right level, command pattern,
etc., they are all suboptimal when you simply want to pass a function as
an argument, and not even return it in a variable.
> When working on my GUI classes, I have been a VERY happy camper to have
> Unrestricted_Access around for quick testing and even for small little apps
> that use the classes.
If it makes you a happy camper, how can it be bad?
Seriously, I know that Unrestricted_Access is a broader mechanism than
just downward funargs, but that simple capability is missed.
-- Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-06-27 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-06-25 0:00 Access to procedures Gautier
1999-06-25 0:00 ` tmoran
1999-06-26 0:00 ` Gautier
1999-06-26 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1999-06-26 0:00 ` tmoran
1999-06-27 0:00 ` David Botton
1999-06-27 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff [this message]
1999-06-27 0:00 ` tmoran
1999-06-28 0:00 ` Gautier
1999-06-25 0:00 ` David Botton
1999-06-25 0:00 ` Ehud Lamm
1999-06-25 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1999-06-25 0:00 ` David Botton
1999-06-26 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox