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,e94a7e4f6f888766
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Self-referential types
Date: 1999/10/13
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910132009020.18305-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 536507072
References: <7ttb4a$8mq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>   <s04ql7cqh1s45@corp.supernews.com>
 <3802f2db_2@news1.prserv.net>   <3803B5E3.F96A6DD4@mitre.org>
 <3803c8bc_2@news1.prserv.net> <3804E7E0.6A0265FB@mitre.org>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 939870774 215 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-10-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>   Amen again.  Have you ever read "Nesting in Ada is for the Birds" by
> Lori Clarke, and others?  It was written before Ada 83 was finalized,
> and discussed the same beneficial effect on coupling when you removed
> nesting of procedures.

Does it discuss the detrimental effect on lots of other aspects of Ada
when you remove nesting of procedures?

-- Brian