Subject: Re: Generic formal access types
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:14:04 +0200
Date: 2003-05-05T10:14:04+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3eb61d59$1@epflnews.epfl.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: wccof2lqoad.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com
Robert A Duff wrote:
> tmoran@acm.org writes:
>
>
>>Why not
>> declare
>> package Instance is new Generic_Package (Integer);
>> subtype Ptr is Instance.Node_Content_Ptr;
>> P : Ptr;
>
>
> That works only if you want to declare the pointer type at the same
> place where the instantiation is. In many cases, you don't. For this
> reason, it's almost always better to pass the pointer type into
> generics.
In my case, "Ptr" is already defined before the instantiation of the
package and I should not change its definition.
But again, I did not think of that possibility, so thanks for the
suggestion.
Rodrigo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-05 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-30 18:30 Generic formal access types
2003-04-30 19:27 ` Simon Wright
2003-05-01 8:58 `
2003-04-30 21:42 ` Chad R. Meiners
2003-05-01 9:06 `
2003-05-01 9:58 ` Martin Krischik
2003-05-01 13:00 `
2003-05-02 9:14 ` Ludovic Brenta
2003-05-02 10:43 `
2003-05-02 10:50 `
2003-05-01 10:09 `
2003-05-02 1:14 ` tmoran
2003-05-02 9:52 `
2003-05-02 16:18 ` tmoran
2003-05-02 16:57 ` Robert A Duff
2003-05-02 19:39 ` Randy Brukardt
2003-05-05 8:14 ` [this message]
2003-05-05 16:40 ` Matthew Heaney
2003-05-05 17:34 ` Robert A Duff
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox