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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,30fad28eb8886cca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: brashear@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (Philip Brashear)
Subject: Re: parameterless generics?
Date: 1996/07/12
Message-ID: <4s5cnp$gq2@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167972328
sender: Phil Brashear
references: <4s48k9$3be$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>
organization: None
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <4s48k9$3be$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>,
Brian Gilbert  <71413.1453@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Does anybody have a reason to use a generic (package or 
>subprogram) without a parameter?  The language (Ada 83 at least) 
>seems to allow it, but everytime the generic is instantiated it 
>would produce an identical copy.  Comments?
>
>Brian Gilbert
>71413.1453@compuserve.com



Sure:

I've used a generic package to represent ONE OBJECT of an Abstract Data
Type (say Stack).  [But I also think that it would have been better to
use a generic type parameter so that I could have made stacks of XX.]

The idea is that the basic structure (the stack body) is in the package
body.  If your instantiation is called My_Stack, then you write calls
like "My_Stack.Push (Thing);", "if My_Stack.Is_Empty then", etc.  Some
people feel more comfortable with such syntax.

Anywho, it's an example.

Phil Brashear