Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins
From: dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages
Message-ID: <13293@cup.portal.com>
Date: 7 Jan 89 23:43:24 GMT
References: <8540@megaron.arizona.edu> <2630@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 20

In article <2630@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

>I don't. I 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.

     Hmmm.  By this definition, Prolog would have to be procedural. 
Attempting to unify a clause results in a parent-child call to its
subclauses.

     On the other hand, both ConcurrentSmalltalk and my language Theme
would have to be non-procedural because the message sends are real message
sends, not disguised procedure calls.

     Is this really what you meant to say?


Dan Hankins