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-Thread: 103376,ebdc5ed511896a0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!feeder.news-service.com!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:11:19 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus.rm.tsoh@maps.futureapps.de>
Organization: #
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: urgent question - generics
References: <1188809249.040351.100160@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
 <1188837355.753212.161150@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
 <SN1Di.488393$p47.360230@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <46dcfc35$0$30383$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <gFpDi.68355$ax1.48032@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
In-Reply-To: <gFpDi.68355$ax1.48032@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <46de7f99$0$4536$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Sep 2007 12:06:17 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0faf9f59.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=LY9ZnED;V9B02Sh8E_NfIAMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA^;5]aA^R6>BZioPg^RaE0NPCY\c7>ejVHLDMeEIHAC0NRg@V3>7P@<B
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1749
Date: 2007-09-05T12:06:17+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

anon wrote:
> The English language has many different definitions of the word 'generic', 
> none of them deal with Ada.  Which can cause confusion when trying to 
> answer someone question, if you do not know the semantics of the word 
> 'generic' or the phase 'generic statement'.

Yes, obviously. But is it the best way to remove misunderstandings
by again employing a misleading meaning of "generic" as in
"generic statement" for "access to procedure" a.k.a. procedure
pointer? (I'm saying this because communicating anything becomes
O(terrible(n)), time consuming, entails anger and cost because
misunderstandings can lead to work in the wrong direction etc.
Words are then overloaded in a piece of information that should
be specific, i.e., not overloaded. I'm not denying the
usefulness of understanding what the intended meaning was,
only that it should not be adopted.)


>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -- The Probability the answer that she ask for:                             --
>>> --                                                                          --
>>> --   type proc_access is access procedure ; -- is the generic statement     --
>>> --                                          -- that she needed.             --
>> I'm not sure I understand "generic statement" here.
>> Proc_Access looks like an access to subprogram type.
>> What is a generic statement?
>