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,bd0de980b22e8253
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: davidf@mks.com (David J. Fiander)
Subject: Re: Help.  Procedure is undefined
Date: 1998/01/08
Message-ID: <ug1myg4jq.fsf@davidf-nt.mks.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 314049856
Sender: davidf@davidf-nt.mks.com
References: <34B4C915.4BF8@bton.ac.uk> <34b4f3da.7353367@news.logica.co.uk>
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


reply-address-in-sig (Steve Garriga) writes:
> 
> From a glance at your code it seems that you don't understand control
> flow. When a procedure or function is called, control is passed with
> the intention that control is passed back when the procedure or
> function completes. 
> 
> So.... what you need if I understand your intention, is a loop in your
> main procedure which is terminated by selecting quit, and your other
> procedures to just 'return' (i.e. don't attempt to call main, just
> complete).

Infering backwards from your response, the other possibility is
that he's Scheme or Lisp programmer who thinks that the correct
way to implement a looping construct is via tail-recursive
function calls.  In Scheme, the pair of functions

	(define a (x) (printf "%d\n" x) (b x))

	(define b (x) (a (+ 1 x)))

will count forever, without ever blowing the stack (ignoring the
lack of a real "printf" function, of course).

- David