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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (Brian Rogoff) Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram Date: 1996/07/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168609703 references: organization: /u/rogoff/.organization reply-to: rogoff@sccm.stanford.edu newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: 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