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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c1fe4bc1dd51fc87 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Eric Hughes Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: User-defined type attributes Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <7ebd2d85-f194-453d-a7d9-e75c4b82d822@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com> References: <30f629fd-69d3-4d40-995f-9933f52b8dad@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <965suhjl0bxt$.74se2ylyksin.dlg@40tude.net> <1t28s8pm6mnmg.gabilv2a3qm3.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.70.57.218 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1205517873 15283 127.0.0.1 (14 Mar 2008 18:04:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=166.70.57.218; posting-account=5RIiTwoAAACt_Eu87gmPAJMoMTeMz-rn User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20385 Date: 2008-03-14T11:04:33-07:00 List-Id: On Mar 14, 3:01 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: > Right, because to make it rigorously you have to make "task type" a proper > class. That means, tasks must be tagged, there must be Root_Task type and a > class of. No, you don't. If your only conception of generic programming is to virtualize everything, then this statement would be true to you. But this conclusion rests upon an invalid premise about the nature of generic programming. > I see where you are going. It is to consider (some) attributes > automatically instantiated generic functions. Am I right? Basically correct. Yet I also mean generic functions in their full sense and not in the sense where they are instantiated merely with virtual function calls. Eric