Re: Q: access to subprogram

[rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (Brian Rogoff)]

dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
   <talking about downward closures>

   Tuck is certainly right that the reason that this originally disappeared
   was in the general mood of simplification, although some would feel that
   the restriction here is not a simplification but rather an instance of
   introducing arbitrary restrictions that make things more complex.

I am surprised that anyone would feel that it is not a restriction that makes 
things more complex for the user. It's not arbitrary, in that there are 
several implementation oriented arguments favoring the restriction. I can 
accept the decision as reasonable given the circumstances, and lack of 
compelling data refuting the implementation arguments or less compelling data 
about the utility of the feature in similar languages.

   But the failure of Bill Taylor's arguments with repsect to iterators
   to succeed in getting the feature in was definitely the above consideration,
   and as I say, you should read all the articles -- of course the articles
   only capture a part of the argument -- you should also read Jim's
   excellent minutes of the Villar's meeting where this issue was discussed
   and finally decided on.

Is this online somewhere? 

-- Brian