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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c0d427d5f4af20f8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "REH" <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: generics in Ada 83
Date: 19 Sep 2005 10:58:28 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1127152708.824683.290990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1126617980.932226.320710@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <pxDVe.3$Fv6.0@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>
   <g5m8gd.m29.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <1126703715.202970.293880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <ssa9gd.hhl.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <1126711381.425805.248380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <wccbr2vpsh2.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.91.173.42
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127152714 18856 127.0.0.1 (19 Sep 2005 17:58:34
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:58:34 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <wccbr2vpsh2.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.91.173.42;
   posting-account=lnUIyw0AAACoRB2fMF2SFTIilm8F10q2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4890
Date: 2005-09-19T10:58:28-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert A Duff wrote:
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> > > In Ada, there is no need to check legality on the expansion of the
> > > generic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of templates is
> > > that the legality is rechecked for each instantiation.
> >
> > Well, in Ada, instantiations check the parameters for validity
> > against whatever contract the generic specifies for them. In C++,
> > the contract is implied by the usage within the template, so yes,
> > the legality is rechecked that way. But remember that in C++
> > template instatntiation is done strictly at compile-time. As far
> > as the programmer is concerned, either an instantiation validly
> > meets the template's requirements for its parameters, or the code
> > fails to compile, and that is true for both languages (or at least
> > I think that's true for Ada).
>
> That's right.
>
> The Ada way makes it easier to understand what the contract _is_.
> And this implies that if you want to change the generic/template,
> it's easier to understand whether or not you might break any clients.
> (If you're writing a widely-used library, you might not have access to
> all existing clients, so you can't compile them to see if they break.)
> It also implies that the error messages are easier to understand,
> especially with multiple layers of templates.
>
> On the other hand, the C++ way is more powerful.
>
> - Bob

That has got to be the best argument I have ever seem for Ada generics.

Thank you,
REH