Re: generics in Ada 83

["REH" <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>]

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> Jeffrey Carter a écrit :
> > Defaults are defined for subprograms by inserting "is Name" or "is <>"
> > before the semicolon (;):
> >
> >    with procedure Y (Z : in X) is A;
> >
> > or
> >
> >    with procedure Y (Z : in X) is <>;
> >
> > You can't use the former, since it requires a procedure A, visible at
> > the point of the generic, that matches Y. Since you don't know what X is
> > at the point of the generic, you can't have such a procedure.
> >
> Let me add something which is maybe not obvious to the OP:
> In Ada, the legality of a generic is checked on the generic, not on the
> instantiation. This is a main difference with templates.
>
> The benefit is that if a generic compiles, and the instantiation
> provides parameters that match the contract (of the generic formals),
> then the instantion is *always* OK.
>
Yes, thank you, I do know that.  I'm just trying to find a way to
shield the application programmers from dealing with noise they don't
care about.  I won't debate templates vs. generics.  I see advantages
to both, though I wil admit I prefer templates.

REH