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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5f6322415d6639e0,start
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Eric Hughes <eric.eh9@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Will the defect with formal package parameters be fixed in GNAT GPL
	2009?
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <558b7171-809b-4259-8679-4b4cff9de519@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.70.57.218
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1240843661 4329 127.0.0.1 (27 Apr 2009 14:47:41
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:47:41 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com; posting-host=166.70.57.218;
	posting-account=5RIiTwoAAACt_Eu87gmPAJMoMTeMz-rn
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.9)
	Gecko/2009040821 Firefox/3.0.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5555
Date: 2009-04-27T07:47:40-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ten months ago in this newsgroup, I reported a defect in the handling
of formal package parameters in GNAT GPL 2008. The original posting is
available from Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_thread/thread/9aae240c681f9f62

My question, a very simple yes-or-no one, is this: Is this defect
corrected for a presumed 2009 release of GNAT GPL edition?

The defect precludes any particularly significant use of generic
programming in library code. The defect manifests itself when generic
packages are stacked up in a nested instantiation. Any serious use of
generic programming requires this approach. When I work in C++, it's
typical for me to nest template instantiations three or four levels
deep. I use generic programming for implementation polymorphism, where
I want the same visible semantics in different contexts (thus where
the total semantics must differ). A typical application is for a
second implementation that removes synchronization for a single-
tasking usage.

I ask because I'm soon planning on resurrecting the project I was
working on where I discovered the defect. If it's not fixed I'll be
switching to C++, and Ada will lose a design win.