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,eeb3ea7993143012
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.195.131 with SMTP id ie3mr8328030pbc.8.1337225823182;
        Wed, 16 May 2012 20:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni7622pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Declaring private packages to instantiate generics?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 20:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <7294223.88.1337225822800.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbli11>
References: <jp0d51$q7e$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <25586653.906.1337178987063.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcvy1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.4.246.214
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1337225823 4796 127.0.0.1 (17 May 2012 03:37:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 03:37:03 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: 
 <25586653.906.1337178987063.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcvy1>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.4.246.214;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-05-16T20:37:02-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:36:27 AM UTC-7, Adam Beneschan wrote:

> > package FOO is
> >    procedure P;
> > end FOO;
> >=20
> > package body FOO is
> >    package BAR is new SOME_GENERIC_PACKAGE;
> >    procedure P is new BAR.P;
> > end FOO;
> > --->%---
> >=20
> > Can I somehow provide the body of P without writing a procedure which j=
ust=20
> > forwards to an instantiation of BAR.P, IOW without having to write:
> >=20
> > ---%<---
> > package body FOO is
> >    package BAR is new SOME_GENERIC_PACKAGE;
> >    procedure BAR_P is new BAR.P;
> >    procedure P is begin BAR_P; end;
> > end FOO;
> > --->%---
> >=20
> > Regards,
> > Markus
>=20
> You can change the last to
>=20
>    procedure P renames BAR_P;
>=20
> But that's the best you can do.  If you have an incomplete declaration (i=
.e. the declaration of P in the *spec* of FOO), you can't complete it with =
a generic instantiation---that's the rule.  (I think he reason is that a ge=
neric instantiation is equivalent to a declaration of the instance followed=
 by the body of the instance, and doing that here would mean you're declari=
ng P twice, which isn't allowed.  It can be argued that the language rules =
should be relaxed in this case, since it's tripped up more than one person,=
 and offhand I don't see any complications that would arise if it were allo=
wed.)

I just got reminded by Tucker Taft that there's a problem if P has paramete=
rs.  The parameters aren't listed in a generic_instantiation:

  package FOO is
     procedure P (Param : in Integer; Param2 : out Integer);
  end FOO;
=20
  package body FOO is
     package BAR is new SOME_GENERIC_PACKAGE;
     procedure P is new BAR.P;
  end FOO;

This makes it less clear to the eye that the second P completes the first o=
ne.  (This would especially be a problem if there is more than one P with d=
ifferent parameter profiles in the specification.)  This makes it clearer:

  package FOO is
     procedure P (Param : in Integer; Param2 : out Integer);
  end FOO;
=20
  package body FOO is
     package BAR is new SOME_GENERIC_PACKAGE;
     procedure New_P is new BAR.P;
     procedure P (Param : in Integer; Param2 : out Integer)
        renames New_P;
  end FOO;

So there's a good reason why the rules are the way they are.

                      -- Adam