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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5c7d7b754dfe430e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Help needed: Access type to functions in generic package
Date: 1999/09/12
Message-ID: <37dc1a3f@news1.prserv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 524210460
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <37DBA86F.3805AA69@deathsdoor.com> <37dbe7da@news1.prserv.net>
 <37DBFEBF.B74D1958@deathsdoor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net
X-Trace: 12 Sep 1999 21:25:19 GMT, 32.101.8.119
Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services
Mime-version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-09-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <37DBFEBF.B74D1958@deathsdoor.com> , Zeiram 
<zeiram@deathsdoor.com>  wrote:

>> Why is this package generic?  Why don't you declare your array type this
>> way:
>>
>
> In fact, this was just a part of the definitions of my package.
> In reality, my type T_Maze is declared as private.

Then why not declare T_Maze as private, but with discriminants?

  package Maze is

    type T_Maze (X, Y, Z : Positive) is private;

  private

    type T_Maze_Array is
      array (Positive range <>, Positive range <>, Positive range <>) of
      T_Cell;

    type T_Maze (X, Y, Z : Positive) is
      record
        Items : T_Maze_Array (1 .. X, 1 .. Y, 1 .. Z);
      end record;

  end Maze;



> This is due
> to the fact that I also need to realize a dynamic implementation
> of my software (yes, this a project from my CS course :-) )

I don't know what you mean by "realize a dynamic implementation."

> It consequently seemed logical to create this package as a
> generic one.

I'm still not convinced you need a generic.


> If I decide to use a non private type and do only a static
> implementation, I know for sure your solution will work
> perfect. (It was, in fact, the way I ran my first tests)

I don't know what you mean by "static implementation."

Does the private type above meet your needs?  If not, why not?