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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2078ce7aac45af5b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.248.34 with SMTP id yj2mr8820079pbc.2.1352803505692;
        Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 6ni78927pbd.1!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:45:05 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada202X : Adding functors
References: <0114d327-9f9f-4ad2-9281-56331d11a90c@googlegroups.com>
 <k7rvrq$gfs$1@dont-email.me>
 <b6d20ef9-7ca8-4d24-9a98-6c83297d503f@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <b6d20ef9-7ca8-4d24-9a98-6c83297d503f@googlegroups.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Message-ID: <50a224b0$0$9523$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Nov 2012 11:45:04 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1f25d2e4.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=f4@X^E5JWD<^cW`WBF>WQ<ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1nkgeX?EC@@0L]_QDT8B6i?nc\616M64>:Lh>_cHTX3j=g^CCjXXZcN7
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-11-13T11:45:04+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 13.11.12 00:19, Martin wrote:
> I don't think it would need to extend to existing code or to explicit calls, only to functors - would that be more acceptable?

But is adding syntactic implicitness of ?() enough?

Isn't there more about "functors"? And if so, wouldn't Ada
generics have to become "more recursive" so as to get all the
benefits of using "functors" in a generalized and checked fashion?

http://www.catonmat.net/blog/on-functors/

(Otherwise, overloading "()" just looks like catering to those who
write programs in a style that is between lazy (avoiding names) and
obfuscating.)