🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4700062@ada-uts> richw@ada-uts writes:
>
>Sarima (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>
>>>          I fail to see how an enumeration can solve the general
>>>  problem (even given your example).  Given that at the time you
>>>  write the mapper package you do *not* know what procedures will
>>>  be called by it, and that *most* of the procedures to be used do
>>>  not even exist yet, *how* can you create an enumeration type
>>>  that covers the set?
>
>Your point is valid; I did not explicitly state that modification of
>the mapper package is necessary when newly written procedures are to
>be passed (I didn't realize this wasn't obvious).  So, in terms of
>program maintainance, yes, the mapping method is less convenient; if
>you remember, I admitted from the onset that it WAS less convenient.
>In any case, thanks for pointing out this ambiguity.
>
>(Note, however, that the pain of having to modify the mapper package
> has nothing to do with WHAT you can do using the method; this mapping
> method STILL provides the same functionality as procedure passing.)
>

I noticed that passing objects of type task was rejected very early in
this discussion.  Why?  (Please don't plead  run-time  "performance".)

It seems to provide  a reasonable approximation of  C's semantics  for
passing  function  pointers.   Ignoring  the   aesthetic arguments and
assuming someone  Really  Needs to do  this, are there any significant
reasons why it cannot be used to solve the problem?

(P.S. A simple bit of code passed the Verdix compiler, at least.)