On Apr 30, 2:32 pm, Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homep...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 30 Kwi, 17:20, Adam Beneschan <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > I suspect that Randy was talking only about anonymous access-to-object
> > parameters.
>
> Then I don't really see what kind of "rotten" design they could
> possibly sup****t.
> The only do***ented use for them in Ada that I've seen was to simplify
> the definition of List_Node-like records. Looks like a reasonable
> rationalization. What are the pitfalls?
>
> > Anonymous access-to-subprogram parameters (which Ada.Containers does
> > use) are a different animal altogether. They do serve a legitimate
> > purpose
>
> Yes - I was afraid that this legitimate use was considered harmful.
>
> > [Apologies if this is a duplicate post... Google Groups, which is
> > apparently written in C++, was not behaving right...]
>
> If we are already trolling, then some correction is in order here. As
> far as I know, Google Groups was written in Java and indeed is a crap
> (I'm using it as well).
Sorry, let me rephrase that:
[Apologies if this is a duplicate post... Google Groups, which is
apparently written in Java which is supposed to be the future of
programming and be totally superior to other existing languages like
Ada in addition to being way more cool, was not behaving right.]
-- Adam
|
