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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4dcea36626746792,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-10 06:22:16 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: tony_gair@yahoo.co.uk (Tony Gair)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: something I would like to see in ADA 2005
Date: 10 Apr 2003 06:22:16 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <6a90b886.0304100522.2ebf68b2@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.75.147.42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1049980936 7341 127.0.0.1 (10 Apr 2003 13:22:16
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Apr 2003 13:22:16 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36046
Date: 2003-04-10T13:22:16+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I would like to see generic protected types in ada 2005.

For example I have had to write seven , very similarly functioning
protected types to perform the same database functions using the AVL
trees of the booch components. They protected types save their data
automatically but why on earth did I need to write seven (and debug !
and maintain! eek).

I think protected types remove a lot problems and save writing tasks
but in this case the task probably should have been used just to
maintain the genericness ( or genericisity), but this would have been
at the cost of the solid robustness provided by protected types.

Are we too late to have our requests considered by whoever makes these
decisions ?