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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,da85d9aaf769b16a X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Generic package parameters not externally visible : what's the rational ? Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:19:10 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <64f7c9d4-df3d-4313-985d-1191991a1de6@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> References: <10eygvuzeit9g.xwy2wanxoxgf$.dlg@40tude.net> <1kf8mo4r9lqxg.1tdhqe6femt9m.dlg@40tude.net> <1r8etjwa9k46n.3pyj04jn686o$.dlg@40tude.net> <1trjf9wxhbsqb$.14uxfibpc7k8x$.dlg@40tude.net> <19ee7f4e-513a-4caf-9822-4610ff2155b2@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <1ueb9d0h9nmm3$.11lt1wv42yxvt.dlg@40tude.net> <67b00f8a-3d12-48c9-ad5a-34980cf82e08@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <11k5zsz6ne6n5$.ds2jp646tltk.dlg@40tude.net> <678f416b-c31b-4b51-88df-1e8917c111c0@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <1og9wz7f75x0r.1fknswx76xyyz$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.198.58.159 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1257509951 31250 127.0.0.1 (6 Nov 2009 12:19:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:19:11 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.198.58.159; posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9013 Date: 2009-11-06T04:19:10-08:00 List-Id: On 5 nov, 15:09, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:16:11 -0800 (PST), Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne) wrot= e: > > On 5 nov, 12:00, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" > > wrote: > >> I am using "Generic_" because it is almost impossible to do anything > >> otherwise if you have really many generics. And I do, because I have t= o. > > Then, may be a point to discuss about : when using a "_Mixin" packages > > (or "_Facet", after Rosen, this is the same), as a "_Mixin" package is > > generic (this would not make sense otherwise), the "Generic_" prefix > > may not be needed when the package is "_Mixin". Or perhaps > > "_Mixin" (nor "_Facet") should not be used after-all, and only > > "Generic_" should be (showing no difference between "_Mixin" and > > others "Generic_"). > > Sounds interesting. Can you give some examples? You are more experienced than I am, so this may not sounds so much interesting after-all I was talking about the "_Mixin" design pattern, which is a suggested way to do something like MI (Multiple Inheritance) with Ada. I think you do not use it, as your talked about some personal success stories you had with the Interface construct, and "_Mixin" is supposed to be the generic way to do most of what Interface can do. In the previous context, I was to say that as the "_Mixin" design pattern only makes sense with generics, if a package as the "_Mixin" suffix, there is no need to add the "Generic_" prefix, because "_Mixin" implies the package is generic. Then, as "_Mixin" and "Generic_" both means "generic", I was simply wondering if "_Mixin" was to be really used or not (finally, I think it is of real interest, so I did not drop "_Mixin" in favor or "Generic_"). Providing I've understood your question the proper way.