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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,14e13e6d99ef0a58
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Task as a parameter!
Date: 1996/04/19
Message-ID: <dewar.829886642@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 148366298
references: <4l52dg$7qh@gulfa.kuwait.net>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ahmed says

"Is it possible to pass a Task as a prammerter ?

Can you imagin the impact on such scheme on distriputed systems?

better than that, imagin having an object class of Task and the task alocator
is a dynamic process that will detect the existance
of a new machice (potenctial procession node) to be binded on the
fly and the Task alocator will pass task object to it !!!

hmmm a mouth watering "PARADIGM" !!!!!"

Yes, of course it is possible, and is done frequently. In fact what is not
clear is why you think there would be a special rule preventing it. You
can pass any type object as a parameter.