Re: About String

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:43:21 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Why closures? I was about to mention nesting, which
> solves this issue in Ada 95 and Ada:

[...]

Only to show what the thing is. [Nested function is a closure too.]

> In a sense, Safe_T works just like constructors that don't raise.

Yes, fail-safe declarations do not raise (per definition).

>> Note, no magic stuff, no exception handlers in declarations, just a simple
>> thing, which Ada should have had from the day one: functional types and
>> literals of.
> 
> With the function's full environment?

Just usual stuff where access type (or a formal generic subprogram) is
presently used instead.

Certainly, no upward closures. So all accessibility checks would apply.
I.e. you would not be able to return a local subprogram.[*]

------------
* Unless [which is a another IMO necessary step] the subprograms is
conditionally pure relatively to the result's type scope.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de