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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,103b407e8b68350b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-28 12:16:00 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!spool0902.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:04:01 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030116
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Anybody in US using ADA ? One silly idea..
References: <mailman.1041817083.31051.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <avc2tk$e3qv9$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <1041908422.928308@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <kegl1vsa5tjnkuo04ckgt78b3lsn5j0ium@4ax.com>
 <1041997309.165001@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <avh8fs$fni6s$2@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <1042086217.253468@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <avmj4i$gh335$2@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <1042477504.547640@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <b044a1$l4p22$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de> <3E32B5C0.5090004@attbi.com>
 <1043684990.403565@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <wcc
 <wccbs216rmg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <wccbs216rmg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1043784241.351628@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1043784242  23837 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:33514
Date: 2003-01-28T15:04:01-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:
> You can pass a nested procedure to a less-nested generic during
> instantiation.  You cannot pass the 'Access of a nested procedure to a
> less-nested procedure.

This makes perfect sense to me. In my naive, C++ style of thinking
about generics, I see the instantiation as doing textual substitution
at that point, and so while the generic itself has been declared at a
less nested level, its instantiation is not. I don't think of the
instantiation as "passing" the parameters.

But I guess the idea is that the generic can also pull in names from
its own context that would be different from the names that would be
found if the code was just written in place at the instantiation point,
and those can be local functions as well, and that's where some of the
complexity sets in.