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: 103376,25c6c17a48209275
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mfb@mbunix.mitre.org (Michael F Brenner)
Subject: Re: Generics question
Date: 1997/07/24
Message-ID: <5r7cvb$bfb@top.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 258489340
References: <5r37k9$h4p$1@kelp.mbay.net>
 <Pine.SGI.3.95.970723191547.6238A-100000@shellx.best.com>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford Mass.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Summary: Passing all the operators is lengthy in nested generic packages
Date: 1997-07-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


    > To do a general numerical algorithm like you describe the Ada 95 idiom is:
    >   generic
    >   type Numeric_Type is private;
    >   with function "+" (X,Y : Numeric_Type) return Numeric_Type is <>;
    >   with function "-" (X,Y : Numeric_Type) return Numeric_Type is <>;
    >   with function "*" (X,Y : Numeric_Type) return Numeric_Type is <>;
    >   ... etc ...
    >   package Numerics is

The etc is not too bad in an unnested generic package, but there is no limit
to how big it can get in nested packages, which is why Ada-200X should
consider passing packages to packages.