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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,cd477c49ed6096e8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:50:47 -0500 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <41498c90$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net> Subject: Re: AI-344, generics/instances... Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:51:54 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Message-ID: <6ZCdnTuj2N7qT9TcRVn-sg@megapath.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-PeSFKXebvFuFTx1jRB8f1A6QyNoXyGAO2LjNc1JxusmuYWXEO9tWe5+mkQ8s3Y26vGw1iV2nlR3DwWw!AFo1DJyDNpjxp6cy4FYewfA0GfspVVs7cR+jsm3KIV/jDCmk9+pHdp9E5LPCKoYXxBgsm4hBhg/s X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.13 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3776 Date: 2004-09-16T12:51:54-05:00 List-Id: "Martin Dowie" wrote in message news:41498c90$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net... > Just a thought that popped into my head and I wanted a 'sanity' check on if > first... > > With AI-344 generic packages that define a tagged type no longer have to be > instantiated at library level. I was wondering if it would be useful to > define a mechanism (pragma?) that allowed an author to insist that a generic > package be instantiated at library level. We tried that (to solve a different problem), and it led to no end of troubles. (Mostly contract problems in generic bodies.) We gave up on it in favor of defining Restrictions of the packages in question. See older versions of AI-303 for details. But we weren't really trying to do that for user code. Probably the best way to do that for user code would be to define a Restriction similar to No_Dependence. But that probably would be controversial; we ended up limiting No_Dependence to only language-defined units because of concerns with supporting user-defined units. (And in any case it is too late for the standard; the scope of the Amendment is set, and the hope is to approve all of the amendments at the next meeting -- which starts tomorrow.) Randy.