On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 6:39 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> You forgot Pascal!
>>
>> Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows nested
>> procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
>> that allows that.
>
> Can you better define nested functions?  Then I can decide if Basic
> allows such.

Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available
inside the declaring function).

Arne

On 4/13/2022 10:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 6:39 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> You forgot Pascal!
>>>
>>> Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows nested
>>> procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
>>> that allows that.
>>
>> Can you better define nested functions? Then I can decide if Basic allows such.
>
> Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available
> inside the declaring function).
>
> Arne
>

Ok, what is so neat about that?

I cannot see the point, when if one wants to use a second function inside a
first function, another external function should be callable. Haven't tried it
recently. Maybe I should. Perhaps I should know what I'm talking about at
least once a year.

But I can see no reason to have a function defined inside another function.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, John Reagan wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:37:39 PM UTC-4, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 2:42 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2022 3:12 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> When do you think the native x86-64 VMS compilers will ship ?
>>>>
>>>> For me:
>>>>
>>>> For COBOL and Fortran: 12-Jul-2022
>>>>
>>>> For BASIC: 11-Oct-2022
>>>>
>>>> For C/C++: 17-May-2022
>>>
>>> You forgot Pascal!
>>>
>>> Booo........
>>>
>>> Arne
>>>
>>>
>> Hey, it's John, Pascal is probably already working ...
>> --
>> David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
>> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
>> DFE Ultralights, Inc.
>> 170 Grimplin Road
>> Vanderbilt, PA 15486
> I have not tried to build a native Pascal yet. Perhaps I should just to screw with the estimates, eh?
>

That would be fun ..

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 14/04/2022 12:23 pm, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 6:39 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> You forgot Pascal!
>>>>
>>>> Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows
>>>> nested procedures and functions. I've not met another
>>>> programming language that allows that.
>>>
>>> Can you better define nested functions? Then I can decide if
>>> Basic allows such.
>>
>> Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available
>> inside the declaring function).
>>
>> Arne
>>
>
> Ok, what is so neat about that?
>
> I cannot see the point, when if one wants to use a second function
> inside a first function, another external function should be
> callable. Haven't tried it recently. Maybe I should. Perhaps I
> should know what I'm talking about at least once a year.
>
> But I can see no reason to have a function defined inside another
> function.
>

Encapsulation/Isolation

On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 19:32 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >            it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows nested
> > procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
> > that allows that.
>
> C# allows something similar since version 7 (non-static) / 8
> (static).

That's nested classes, completely different kettle of fish. It does do
the same thing I'll grant you that.
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 00:24 -0400, Dave Froble wrote:
[snip]
> > > > You forgot Pascal!
> > > >
> > > > Booo........
> > > >
[snip]
> > > Hey, it's John, Pascal is probably already working ...
[snip]
> > I have not tried to build a native Pascal yet.  Perhaps I should
> > just to screw with the estimates, eh?
>
> That would be fun ..

Yes, I believe Pascal's one of the easiest languages to build a
compiler for. TurboPascal was fantastic for what it did back in its
day.
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On 14/04/2022 09:27, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 00:24 -0400, Dave Froble wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>> You forgot Pascal!
>>>>>
>>>>> Booo........
>>>>>
> [snip]
>>>> Hey, it's John, Pascal is probably already working ...
> [snip]
>>> I have not tried to build a native Pascal yet.  Perhaps I should
>>> just to screw with the estimates, eh?
>>
>> That would be fun ..
>
> Yes, I believe Pascal's one of the easiest languages to build a
> compiler for. TurboPascal was fantastic for what it did back in its
> day.

The modern day Free Pascal (www.freepascal.org) is pretty good,
especially with Lazarus, Developed as a superset of Delphi

--
Chris

On 2022-04-13, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> You forgot Pascal!
>
> Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows nested
> procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
> that allows that.

I'm surprised no-one pointed you to a certain other language: :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)

https://learn.adacore.com/courses/intro-to-ada/chapters/subprograms.html#nested-subprograms

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On Mi 13 Apr 2022 at 23:39, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:

> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> You forgot Pascal!
>
> Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows nested
> procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
> that allows that.

Lisp does, and Scheme.

'Andreas

On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 10:11 +0100, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 09:27, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 00:24 -0400, Dave Froble wrote:
> > > That would be fun ..
> >
> > Yes, I believe Pascal's one of the easiest languages to build a
> > compiler for. TurboPascal was fantastic for what it did back in its
> > day.
>
> The modern day Free Pascal (www.freepascal.org) is pretty good,
> especially with Lazarus, Developed as a superset of Delphi

Yes, I've used fpc to compile old TurboPascal code in the past on
Linux. Very good indeed.

--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On 4/14/2022 1:17 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 12:23 pm, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 10:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:39 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> You forgot Pascal!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows
>>>>> nested procedures and functions. I've not met another
>>>>> programming language that allows that.
>>>>
>>>> Can you better define nested functions? Then I can decide if
>>>> Basic allows such.
>>>
>>> Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available inside the
>>> declaring function).
>>>
>>> Arne
>>>
>>
>> Ok, what is so neat about that?
>>
>> I cannot see the point, when if one wants to use a second function inside a
>> first function, another external function should be
>> callable. Haven't tried it recently. Maybe I should. Perhaps I
>> should know what I'm talking about at least once a year.
>>
>> But I can see no reason to have a function defined inside another
>> function.
>>
>
> Encapsulation/Isolation

Isolation from what? You're writing the code, you decide what to write, I still
don't see the point.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 12:12 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >
> > Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows
> > nested
> > procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
> > that allows that.
>
> I'm surprised no-one pointed you to a certain other language: :-)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)
>
> https://learn.adacore.com/courses/intro-to-ada/chapters/subprograms.html#nested-subprograms

:face palm:

How could I have forgotten all about ADA! Yes, indeed that does handle
nested procedures/functions. How could I have forgotten as I did do ADA
programming at university decades ago!
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On 2022-04-14, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 4/14/2022 1:17 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 12:23 pm, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 10:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you better define nested functions? Then I can decide if
>>>>> Basic allows such.
>>>>
>>>> Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available inside the
>>>> declaring function).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, what is so neat about that?
>>>
>>> I cannot see the point, when if one wants to use a second function inside a
>>> first function, another external function should be
>>> callable. Haven't tried it recently. Maybe I should. Perhaps I
>>> should know what I'm talking about at least once a year.
>>>
>>> But I can see no reason to have a function defined inside another
>>> function.
>>>
>>
>> Encapsulation/Isolation
>
> Isolation from what? You're writing the code, you decide what to write, I still
> don't see the point.
>

When you write an application that's say 20,000 lines long, do you
write one great big monolithic function that's 20,000 lines long and
with sections of common code copy and pasted around in the application,
or do you split up the application into logical chunks and also include
common functions with a defined interface that can be called from
multiple points in your application ?

If it's the latter, you are already performing encapsulation and
isolation of functionality and nested procedures are just the
next step in that process.

Some reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> writes:

> How could I have forgotten all about ADA! Yes, indeed that does handle
> nested procedures/functions. How could I have forgotten as I did do ADA
> programming at university decades ago!

Quibble: The name of the language is _Ada_, as in Ada Augusta Lovelace, not
a TLA like "Americans with Disabilities Act".

--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen

On 4/14/2022 2:08 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-04-14, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 4/14/2022 1:17 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2022 12:23 pm, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you better define nested functions? Then I can decide if
>>>>>> Basic allows such.
>>>>>
>>>>> Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available inside the
>>>>> declaring function).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, what is so neat about that?
>>>>
>>>> I cannot see the point, when if one wants to use a second function inside a
>>>> first function, another external function should be
>>>> callable. Haven't tried it recently. Maybe I should. Perhaps I
>>>> should know what I'm talking about at least once a year.
>>>>
>>>> But I can see no reason to have a function defined inside another
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Encapsulation/Isolation
>>
>> Isolation from what? You're writing the code, you decide what to write, I still
>> don't see the point.
>>
>
> When you write an application that's say 20,000 lines long, do you
> write one great big monolithic function that's 20,000 lines long and
> with sections of common code copy and pasted around in the application,
> or do you split up the application into logical chunks and also include
> common functions with a defined interface that can be called from
> multiple points in your application ?

Simon, I'm the world's greatest believer in modularity.

> If it's the latter, you are already performing encapsulation and
> isolation of functionality and nested procedures are just the
> next step in that process.
>
> Some reading:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns
>
> Simon.
>

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 4/14/2022 2:08 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-04-14, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 4/14/2022 1:17 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2022 12:23 pm, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you better define nested functions? Then I can decide if
>>>>>> Basic allows such.
>>>>>
>>>>> Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available inside the
>>>>> declaring function).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, what is so neat about that?
>>>>
>>>> I cannot see the point, when if one wants to use a second function inside a
>>>> first function, another external function should be
>>>> callable. Haven't tried it recently. Maybe I should. Perhaps I
>>>> should know what I'm talking about at least once a year.
>>>>
>>>> But I can see no reason to have a function defined inside another
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Encapsulation/Isolation
>>
>> Isolation from what? You're writing the code, you decide what to write, I still
>> don't see the point.
>>
>
> When you write an application that's say 20,000 lines long, do you
> write one great big monolithic function that's 20,000 lines long and
> with sections of common code copy and pasted around in the application,
> or do you split up the application into logical chunks and also include
> common functions with a defined interface that can be called from
> multiple points in your application ?

Sorry, hit the wrong button.

Simon, I am the world's greatest believer in modularity.

I have libraries of often used functionality.

I break tasks down into reasonable units.

I really try to keep things as simple and understandable as possible.

When one creates an "object" to perform a task, then one can invoke that same
"object" many times, from all over the main task. (Use of term "object" intended.)

This has caused one problem. It is not the language, but the implementation of
the return from a routine that can be so costly. ("Yes John, I'm still upset
about this.) We've had "objects" that have been called hundreds of thousands,
even millions of times, to perform a simple task, and the performance has
suffered greatly. We've had at times to go into the program and inline the code
for performance reasons. (We should not have to do this John.)

But the philosophy has been, keep it small, keep it simple, keep it reusable.

> If it's the latter, you are already performing encapsulation and
> isolation of functionality and nested procedures are just the
> next step in that process.

But why? Why would anyone ever want to encapsulate some object inside another
object? Not saying there will never be a reason, but, I just don't see it.

Nor would I consider modularity and encapsulation to be the same concept, or,
perhaps that is arguing symantics.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 4/14/2022 4:12 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 19:32 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>            it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows nested
>>> procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
>>> that allows that.
>>
>> C# allows something similar since version 7 (non-static) / 8
>> (static).
>
> That's nested classes, completely different kettle of fish.

No.

Nested classes has been in C# since version 1 (because
it was in Java).

C# version 7 and 8 added nested methods.

Arne

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 9:23:42 PM UTC-7, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2022 6:39 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >>>> You forgot Pascal!
> >>>
> >>> Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows nested
> >>> procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
> >>> that allows that.
> >>
> >> Can you better define nested functions? Then I can decide if Basic allows such.
> >
> > Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available
> > inside the declaring function).
> >
> > Arne
> >
> Ok, what is so neat about that?
>
> I cannot see the point, when if one wants to use a second function inside a
> first function, another external function should be callable. Haven't tried it
> recently. Maybe I should. Perhaps I should know what I'm talking about at
> least once a year.
>
> But I can see no reason to have a function defined inside another function.

I've used this a few times in php and perl. It's useful for very local functions, e.g. some kind of local string mashing over a set of strings.

On 4/14/2022 12:23 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 6:39 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> You forgot Pascal!
>>>>
>>>> Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows nested
>>>> procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
>>>> that allows that.
>>>
>>> Can you better define nested functions?  Then I can decide if Basic
>>> allows such.
>>
>> Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available
>> inside the declaring function).
>
> Ok, what is so neat about that?
>
> I cannot see the point, when if one wants to use a second function
> inside a first function, another external function should be callable.
> Haven't tried it recently.  Maybe I should.  Perhaps I should know what
> I'm talking about at least once a year.
>
> But I can see no reason to have a function defined inside another function.

First of all then it is not a "must have" only a "nice to have".

But it does provide some benefits for large programs.

It avoids name pollution as the names are not globally
available, so reduces the number of accidental name conflicts
to be resolved.

It makes fixing/enhancing the code less risky. With a
globally visible function you need to check if it is used
elsewhere and whether the fix/enhancement will work for them.
With a local function inside your main function, then you know
that nobody else is using it and you can do what you want to
do without fear of breaking something else.

Arne

On 4/14/2022 6:39 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/14/2022 2:08 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-04-14, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2022 1:17 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>> On 14/04/2022 12:23 pm, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 8:43 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>>> Can you better define nested functions?  Then I can decide if
>>>>>>> Basic allows such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Functions declared inside functions (and therefore only available
>>>>>> inside the
>>>>>> declaring function).
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, what is so neat about that?
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot see the point, when if one wants to use a second function
>>>>> inside a
>>>>> first function, another external function should be
>>>>> callable. Haven't tried it recently.  Maybe I should.  Perhaps I
>>>>> should know what I'm talking about at least once a year.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I can see no reason to have a function defined inside another
>>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> Encapsulation/Isolation
>>>
>>> Isolation from what?  You're writing the code, you decide what to
>>> write, I still
>>> don't see the point.
>>
>> When you write an application that's say 20,000 lines long, do you
>> write one great big monolithic function that's 20,000 lines long and
>> with sections of common code copy and pasted around in the application,
>> or do you split up the application into logical chunks and also include
>> common functions with a defined interface that can be called from
>> multiple points in your application ?

That is the argument for functions - not the arguments for nested
functions.

> Simon, I am the world's greatest believer in modularity.
>
> I have libraries of often used functionality.
>
> I break tasks down into reasonable units.
>
> I really try to keep things as simple and understandable as possible.
>
> When one creates an "object" to perform a task, then one can invoke that
> same "object" many times, from all over the main task.  (Use of term
> "object" intended.)

> But the philosophy has been, keep it small, keep it simple, keep it
> reusable.
>
>> If it's the latter, you are already performing encapsulation and
>> isolation of functionality and nested procedures are just the
>> next step in that process.
>
> But why?  Why would anyone ever want to encapsulate some object inside
> another object?  Not saying there will never be a reason, but, I just
> don't see it.

If you have a large applications, then having 1000 global visible
functions expose a lot of internals. If you instead have
50 global visible functions that use 200 local visible functions
that use 750 next level visible functions, then have reduced
what get exposed to only what need to be exposed and you keep
the internals internal.

Arne

On 4/14/2022 4:27 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 00:24 -0400, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> Hey, it's John, Pascal is probably already working ...
>>> I have not tried to build a native Pascal yet.  Perhaps I should
>>> just to screw with the estimates, eh?
>>
>> That would be fun ..
>
> Yes, I believe Pascal's one of the easiest languages to build a
> compiler for. TurboPascal was fantastic for what it did back in its
> day.

TP was very fast and used few resources. Probably easy to make
compiler for. And then Anders Hejlsberg was also pretty good.

The problem with VMS Pascal for VMS x86-64 is different, because
it is not really a new compiler but bolting different pieces
(frontend, GEM to LLVM, LLVM) together. That sounds simple
but there can be a lot of devils in the details.

Arne

On 4/14/2022 8:12 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-04-13, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> You forgot Pascal!
>>
>> Nice language, it must be the only one I'm aware of that allows nested
>> procedures and functions. I've not met another programming language
>> that allows that.
>
> I'm surprised no-one pointed you to a certain other language: :-)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)
>
> https://learn.adacore.com/courses/intro-to-ada/chapters/subprograms.html#nested-subprograms

I think it is the entire begin end family.

Modula-2 and Algol also has it.

Arne

On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 14:54 -0400, Rich Alderson wrote:
> Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> writes:
>
> > How could I have forgotten all about ADA! Yes, indeed that does
> > handle nested procedures/functions. How could I have forgotten as I
> > did do ADA programming at university decades ago!
>
> Quibble:  The name of the language is _Ada_, as in Ada Augusta
> Lovelace, not a TLA like "Americans with Disabilities Act".

Quite right too. Sadly on my bookshelf I can see two books that
capitialises Ada!
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 18:59 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >

> > > C# allows something similar since version 7 (non-static) / 8
> > > (static).
> >
> > That's nested classes, completely different kettle of fish.
>
> No.
>
> Nested classes has been in C# since version 1 (because
> it was in Java).
>
> C# version 7 and 8 added nested methods.

Oh? That's news to me but yes, I just checked and indeed it does have
nested methods. But I'm not a C# coder though.
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 19:16 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > Yes, I believe Pascal's one of the easiest languages to build a
> > compiler for. TurboPascal was fantastic for what it did back in its
> > day.
>
> TP was very fast and used few resources. Probably easy to make
> compiler for. And then Anders Hejlsberg was also pretty good.

Amen to that :-D

> The problem with VMS Pascal for VMS x86-64 is different, because
> it is not really a new compiler but bolting different pieces
> (frontend, GEM to LLVM, LLVM) together. That sounds simple
> but there can be a lot of devils in the details.

I'm pretty sure I could bootstrap a toy language compiler using just a
C compiler and a disassembler for the object files to work out the
format the output object code needs to be in. Something for me to do on
a rainy day one day.
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens