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-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:18:09 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc1wlazsy6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <L2ith.12633$ji1.1337@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>
 <mailman.44.1169724732.18371.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <WaBuh.15096$pQ3.10501@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <xwsldwre3j.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <HYPuh.15976$yx6.6882@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <md64ashx3o.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <s1mz41g7d3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <wccps8w8eyc.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <i84pq8mbbi.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <wcchcu6zu9d.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <C1E6D1AD.9256E%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1170285492 12463 192.74.137.71 (31 Jan 2007 23:18:12
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vCJEpcJPnMf0yBqT5H+v/UwrKnQ=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8795
Date: 2007-01-31T18:18:09-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> On 31/1/07 22:49, in article wcchcu6zu9d.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com, "Robert A
> Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I saw part of that discussion.  Yes, "closure" really just means
>> "procedure".  We use "closure" (or "lexical closure") to emphasize the
>> fact that a "procedure" includes some environmental information in
>> addition to just the code.
>> 
>> "Closure" also emphasizes that there's something interesting about that
>> environment -- namely, that NESTED procedures may be passed around the
>> place (whether inward only, or both inward and outward).
> ...
>> Pascal programmers just call them "procedural parameters".
>
> Thread tie!
>
> I invented the "procedural/functional parameter" terminology for
> the BSI/ISO standard because we kept getting confused in committee
> about what was meant when we spoke of "procedure parameters".

Cool!

> (Were "procedure parameters" the parameters OF procedures
> or those that WERE procedures?)

Indeed.

Now tell me which of the following things called X is a "component of
type T"?

    type T is
        record
            X : Integer;
        end record;

    type Something is
        record
            X : T;
        end record;

;-)

- Bob