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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU!Bryan
From: Bryan@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU (Doug Bryan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Design issue: Generics vs Private types
Message-ID: <12306426253.12.BRYAN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30-May-87 02:58:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: Sierra.12306426253.12.BRYAN
Posted: Sat May 30 02:58:26 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 31-May-87 16:38:14 EDT
References: <1158@wayback.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Don't discount generic packages without parameters too soon!!  I think they
have a lot of important uses.  You have to remember that packages can have
state, and getting a new, private (English meaning) state can be important.
Also, issues involving elaboration sometimes make a generic package with
no parameters make sense.

If anyone could find a use for a generic subprogram with now parameters,
now that would be a trick!

doug
-------