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: 103376,8ffd9ca0013db6a7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Vincent Marciante Subject: Re: Redefined "=" = generic disaster? Date: 2000/10/21 Message-ID: <39F1F686.26B5@li.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 684235354 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <39F13ED9.1EE@li.net> <39F1C092.87D4135E@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 972158560 209.139.0.66 (Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:02:40 GMT) Organization: Verio MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:02:40 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-10-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jeff Carter wrote: > > Vincent Marciante wrote: > > > BTW, I not interested in arguments that the old Ada 83 code was actually > > incorrect when it first written. I am interested in finding out wats to > > update it so that it works as one would expect ;) in Ada 95. > > Any generic that uses "=" for a generic formal type should explicitly > import "=" for the type: > After a long bike ride (to get the juices flowing) I now also recognize that because there can actually be two coexisting yet distinct concepts of equality (equivallent and same) then explicitely importing an equality operation would allow the desired kind of equality to be specified when instantiating the generic. I still think that this all opens up the possibility of more unexpected results in Ada 95 than it did in Ada 83. Thanks