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!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!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 17:53:31 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccd54uzu38.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>
 <PM00042858FAEB21FC@tilopa.unknown.dom>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1170284011 5215 192.74.137.71 (31 Jan 2007 22:53:31
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:53:31 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZTfrF3iGbz6lUGI2XzbHbKNUaIY=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8792
Date: 2007-01-31T17:53:31-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ed Falis <falis@verizon.net> writes:

> Robert A Duff wrote:
>
>> Why do we call these closures "downward" and "upward" instead of the
>> other way around?
>
> Because certain microprocessor architectures manage their stacks from
> high to low addresses as things are pushed onto them?

I think pretty-much all computer architectures have stacks that grow
downward in memory (if they have anything resembling a stack at all).
I still prefer to call the top of the stack "top", even if its address
is less than the address of the "bottom".

>...Stupid, but
> understandable how it may have happened.

Quite likely.

- Bob