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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cda33fc7f63c2885 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-10 06:39:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: list strawman Date: 10 Jan 2002 06:39:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0201100639.76966716@posting.google.com> References: <6i%_7.8890$fG.50588@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1010673561 16967 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2002 14:39:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jan 2002 14:39:21 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18733 Date: 2002-01-10T14:39:21+00:00 List-Id: "Mark Lundquist" wrote in message news:<6i%_7.8890$fG.50588@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>... > Indeed it's a bug in Ada95 if the generic uses "=" without importing it > explicitly. Otherwise, an overridden "=" is not visible to the generic, and > predefined equality "reemerges". I implied in an earlier repsonse that this issue has already been addressed. Thomas pointed out to me privately that it had not, and he's quite correct. I was thinking of assignment, which we had already talked about and decided upon. The killer for assignement was the large amount of effort required for no benifit to most people. We have the same issue of little benifit to most people here, but the effort required isn't nearly the same, as "=" should already be available as a function for users to supply. There's also the issue Mark points out of built-in "=" re-emerging, which seems to be to be a pretty darn good argument. > Don't know if that's been fixedin Ted's latest, it may have... Not at this moment. I'd like to see if anyone has a good objection to it, but I personally can't see one. The only issue I can see is that it takes your typical instantiation from: package Integer_Lists is new Containers.Lists.Unbounded (Integer); to package Integer_List is new Containers.Lists.Unbounded (Integer, "="); Instructors will have to explain the purpose of the extra parameter, but I don't think that's too big a deal. I'd like to hear from one of them though.