Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce!lloyd
From: lloyd@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (lloyd allison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: first class functions
Keywords: proc, function, first class, scope, algol-68
Message-ID: <3787@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Date: 6 Mar 91 00:10:48 GMT
Organization: Monash Uni. Computer Science, Australia
Lines: 21

Does anyone know the full story about why Algol-68
did not allow    heap proc,
or something like, and thus widen the scope (!) of procs?

Not all proc values would have to be on the heap.
(In A68 as it stands none are in the heap.)
A conservative algorithm would allocate some to the heap
that need not be there.
If the programmer could write `heap proc'
it would be programmer control - might get it wrong of course.

In AB37.4.2 July 1974 there is a proposal for partial-parametrization
by Charles Lindsey which discusses some of the problems of proc scope.
Bekic is mentioned as having a proposal for lifting the
scope restriction on procs.
B.T.W. did any A68 every implement the partial-p' extension?

Lloyd ALLISON
Department of Computer Science, UUCP:lloyd@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
Monash University, Clayton,     or  :uunet!munnari!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!lloyd
VICTORIA 3168, AUSTRALIA        Tel :565-5205               FAX: +61 3 565 5146