From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,73036d0217be91e2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: Inheritance versus Generics Date: 1997/05/02 Message-ID: <01bc5745$202225c0$d5fd82c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 238975787 References: <33601924.774@flash.net> <5jql3p$p9p@top.mitre.org> <01bc5272$cbd7d400$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> <5k5suu$bhj@top.mitre.org> Organization: UUNet PIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet PIPEX) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Michael F Brenner wrote in article <5k5suu$bhj@top.mitre.org> an excellent article about arrays of packages, and packages as First Class Objects. Many thanks, Michael. I would wholeheartedly agree that it is a great pity that Ada 95 did not include some sort of facility for the dynamic manipulation of package binding. Naturally, this facility would imply a variety of implementation difficulties. It would be difficult (or impossible) to implement dynamically bindable packages as efficiently as statically bound ones. Nevertheless, the speed penalty would, in many cases, be acceptable, and the advantages of such a facility would often be considerable. This may sound surprising, coming from such a technologically conservative person as myself, but I think I would go so far as to say that this is a serious omission, and not one to be lightly brushed aside. Nick.