Article View: comp.sw.components
Article #54Re: Inheritance vs. component effic
From: William Thomas Wolfe,2847,
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1989 16:03
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1989 16:03
17 lines
1345 bytes
1345 bytes
From an earlier article by me:
> [regarding storing pointers to subprograms in Ada]
> The major restriction, then, is not an inability to store a pointer to
> a function in a record type; rather, it is the fact that there is not
> a mechanism which can express the desire to invoke the function residing
> at that address; the 9X proposed revision would therefore provide such a
> mechanism.
Actually, even this isn't strictly true; since Ada provides a
mechanism for arbitrary machine-code insertions, it is quite
possible to load the address of the desired subprogram into a
register, direct the CPU to execute the subprogram, and finally
store a pointer to the results for subsequent use; it's just that
there's no way to do it while still preserving portability...
Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<6339@hubcap.clemson.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.eduReferences:
<6333@hubcap.clemson.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) Newsgroups: comp.sw.components Subject: Re: Inheritance vs. component effic Message-ID: <6339@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 27 Aug 89 16:03:16 GMT References: <6333@hubcap.clemson.edu> Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu Lines: 17