Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 (Fortune 01.1b1); site graffiti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter
From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C Wish List
Message-ID: <365@graffiti.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 05:59:26 EST
Article-I.D.: graffiti.365
Posted: Wed Oct 23 05:59:26 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 06:43:46 EST
References: <2423@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 28
> /*
> > > 4. Allow true block structuring:
> > >
> > > outs(s) char*s; {
> > > outc(c) char c; {...}
> > > tputs(s, outc);
> > > }
> >
> > Let's call this "nested procedures" since C has its own sort of block
> > structure.
Yes, and this is a logical generalisation of that block structure.
> > I would be very happy <> to have to deal with nested
> > procedures again. (I have had to deal with them more from the compiler-
> > writer's side than from the user's side.) Nested procedures are neither
> > easy nor cheap (unless done wrong, which happens often enough). They fight
> > particularly with procedure variables, which I consider to be one of C's
> > more useful features (and a moderately serious shortcoming of Pascal).
OK. But I still would like to have these... if anyone can figure out a cheap
way of doing them. File-level modules are a kludge at best. No objection to my
other proposals?
--
Name: Peter da Silva
Graphic: `-_-'
UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter
IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter