From: Wes Groleau <wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
Subject: Re: non-generic generic parameters
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:46:18 -0500
Date: 2001-12-11T09:46:18-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C161C3A.9FD2617E@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mailman.1008076322.18644.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Mike Brenner wrote:
> Is this the reason why non-generic packages have been forbidden as generic parameters?
>
> It seems that the benefits of a fully orthogonal implementation of generic (making them second-class objects by permitting passing object to objects) outweigh the benefits of keeping compatibility with all existing bodies.
>
> In particular, permitting non-generic package parameters would give a way to switch implementations without rewriting the code. In particular, a configuration manager could simply swap the spec and body of the package being
You can write the two candidate packages as generics
with no parameters. You get the same results, pretty much.
--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-11 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-11 13:11 Dimensionality Checking (Ada 20XX) Mike Brenner
2001-12-11 14:46 ` Wes Groleau [this message]
2001-12-11 17:03 ` Mark Lundquist
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox