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,cef1968b544ddf26
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Static variables?
Date: 1997/03/27
Message-ID: <dewar.859472958@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 228764338
References: <332D71FF.4773@cae.ca> <JSA.97Mar17193855@alexandria>
 <dewar.858770825@merv> <5h8786$oml$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <1997Mar25.073604.1@eisner>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Larry said

<<Is the quality being sought just nested subprograms,
or is uplevel addressing actually required ?  There
are languages which have nested subprograms without
uplevel addressing.

I suppose one can simulate uplevel addressing with lots of
in-out parameters, but for me that moves away from readability.>>

Absolutely the issue is uplevel addressing. nested procedures without
uplevel addressing are a rather small feature, they provide a bit of
namespace protection, which can be provided by other means.

The context of the original remark was to do with threaded programs, where
nested procedures and uplevel addressing are an enormous help in writing
thread safe code. Have a look back at the start of the thread, and reread
my comments on the structure of printf for an example.