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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9fa5063fbdc75ae4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-16 13:00:09 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.alt.net!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tmoran@acm.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: array of strings in a function
References: <Q_Ajb.3191$s93.1793@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader
Message-ID: <cNCjb.573898$cF.246507@rwcrnsc53>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.234.124.41
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1066334408 12.234.124.41 (Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:00:08 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:00:08 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:00:08 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1013
Date: 2003-10-16T20:00:08+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>Certainly. But to handle an arbitrary number of parameters, you have to
  I think you mean "large" rather than "arbitrary".  The latter, of
course, is impossible using any finite technique.  So the relevant
question is how big "large" must be, and whether that number of
procedures is a less or more desirable implementation than the various
other techniques proposed.