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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7eaf9f2597de2259
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-13 10:29:30 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
From: Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:32:36 -0700
Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering
Message-ID: <3BC87AB4.4FF52ADE@adaworks.com>
References: <mailman.1002878056.4002.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.cc.94
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 13 Oct 2001 17:30:40 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14458
Date: 2001-10-13T17:30:40+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"M. A. Alves" wrote:

> > >The Object.Method syntax can be implemented with preprocessing (please
> > >correct me if I am wrong on this). (I)

I knew at least one developer group that wrote many of its packages
without generic formal parameters this way.

                  generic                  -- Note the absence of formal parameters

                  package Q is
                     type T is ...
                     procedure P1 ...
                     procedure P2 ...
                     function F1 ... return ...
                 private
                      ...
                 end Q;

Then, the package had to be instantiated before it could be used.

               package D is new Q;

so each exported entity could be invoked using the distinguished receiver
model.   Their rationale was slightly different from what it being discussed
here.   In their case, they wanted to be able to control elaboration at an exactly
designated place in their code.   As pointed out elsewhere, this does have a
downside when considered in terms of dynamic binding.

Richard Riehle