Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages
Message-ID: <2630@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 5 Jan 89 14:10:53 GMT
References: <8540@megaron.arizona.edu>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 18

In article <8540@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
> I guess my understanding of "dataflow" is different from yours (and
> since I've never studied the subject, I'm willing to admit ignorance),
> but Icon's multiple-result feature is definitely procedural in nature.
> At least it is if you would call co-routines procedural.

I don't. A define a procedural language as one in which all modules have
a parent-child relationship with each other. I also don't classify languages
by implementation details... for example, SmallTalk uses messages to pass
data between procedures, but since they generally have a parent-child
relationship (one calls the other) they're still procedures. Icon uses
a stack to pass a stream of data between concurrently executing modules.
They have a source/drain relationship. It's non-procedural.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.