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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!rjh
From: rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Procedure types and dynamic binding
Message-ID: <5806@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 89 03:06:07 GMT
References: <5796@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <4046@hubcap.UUCP> <5804@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Reply-To: rjh@cs.purdue.edu (Bob Hathaway)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Another more direct way to parameterize a change operation is
to use a procedural variable as a parameter.  Such as:

generic
    type ELEMENT_TYPE is private;
package ...
    type PRINT_PROCEDURE is procedure (ELEMENT : in ELEMENT_TYPE);
    procedure CHANGE_PRINT_OPERATION (PRINT_OPERATION : in PRINT_PROCEDURE);

This allows dynamic specification of statically checked print procedures per 
instance while the previous example assumed the user knew all allowable 
procedures during instantiation.

					 Bob Hathaway
                                         rjh@purdue.edu