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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: Inheritance versus Generics
Date: 1997/04/29
Message-ID: <3365EF16.443C@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 238175325
References: <33601924.774@flash.net> <dewar.861973462@merv>
 <5jql3p$p9p@top.mitre.org> <dewar.862005625@merv>
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Michael said
> 
> <<May I add that the same functionality would have been achieved had packages
> been either first class (makable into arrays) or second class (passable
> as generic parameters) objects.>>
> 
> I assume you are aware of all the subtle semantic problems in doing this.
> This is an issue that has been discussed very extensively during the
> design process, and the issues are well known and well understood, and
> the consensus was that package types are simply too much additional
> complexity ...

I have done some extensive work on that topic (package types as
classes), and I disagree. You can find my proposal at
<http://lglwww.epfl.ch/Team/MW/Ada-Extensions/Ada-Extensions.html>

On the other hand, I would be very interested in knowing the arguments
that lead to the consensus that rejected package types. Is there a
paper, report, or anything ?