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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram Date: 1996/07/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167162730 references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> <4re2ng$t7u@wdl1.wdl.loral.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon said "I can maybe buy the second bit (about difficulty for display based impls) but the first makes no sense. You wouldn't have to pass displays or whatever in those cases where the feature wasn't being used. Which means that there is _no_ distributed overhead for the 99+% of regular ol' subprogram calls." If you buy the second bit, and if you agree that displays are more efficient than static links for Ada programs (which is not gospel, it requires discussion and examination -- I certainly think it is the case), then the first bit is a consequence, since the provision of closures would push you away from using displays, and hence introduce distributed overhead -- that was what was being talked about.