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 <<never>> 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