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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fccea7ca608399cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.velia.net!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Vector of Vectors.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <496e8418$0$25733$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <aqxbl.525097$yE1.73554@attbi_s21> <6t8gc1F9ej88U1@mid.individual.net>
 <HeNbl.470657$TT4.98639@attbi_s22> <wccab9s6z2q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <c6b25ab4-ffc8-49e5-8ab3-18e3bc21b897@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>
 <1k65xsljjpsa9$.1e4pcvnzbjpag.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc7i4tnaoq.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <dg4bpwd71u9g$.z4gc72j51z58.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc3afhy1ky.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:44:46 +0100
Message-ID: <y3kit9lgqbxa.eu261id6g6va$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2009 10:44:48 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1eb6a754.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=k=b^SFl36W>i6K;>iZ]763A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9PE31VF^PL]2DNcfSJ;bb[5IRnRBaCd<M>T_I6ILZHN_=KJh2QG4Vdg6
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3423
Date: 2009-01-18T10:44:48+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:06:37 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> Concerning syntax, I think we should have introduced proper procedural
>> types with literals/aggregates of. Quite simple to do, IMO.
> 
> I mostly agree.  What syntax would you propose for anonymous procedures?

That is the most difficult part! It should allow both one-line coding style
when a mere [lazy] expression and a full-blown body with exception handlers
etc.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de