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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.a109-49-159-46.cpe.netcabo.pt!not-for-mail
From: Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Successor Language
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 21:21:46 +0200
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <878t75nwad.fsf@adaheads.home>
References: <5e86db65-84b9-4b5b-9aea-427a658b5ae7@googlegroups.com>
	<878t7u1cfm.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<c22391d4-94b6-4ed3-96c0-1e9a84c4a99c@googlegroups.com>
	<b1141508-e692-46f6-b536-4a72081dfb45@googlegroups.com>
	<foqeocF7l4fU1@mid.individual.net> <pg949k$jmv$1@dont-email.me>
	<foqjvhF8kskU1@mid.individual.net>
	<776f3645-ed0c-4118-9b4d-21660e3bba4b@googlegroups.com>
	<pg9bd9$eo9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87602fbu2g.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<pgad3n$1sop$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87po0mziqt.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<pgbm5e$c1l$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87fu1izfgs.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<pgd1hq$ca2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="a109-49-159-46.cpe.netcabo.pt:109.49.159.46";
	logging-data="25680"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NsMTqY9hdENi/HUI0TlLjj7aWnI=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53274
Date: 2018-06-23T21:21:46+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> 5. No proper separation of interface and implementation. If you used
> Ada generics you would know that successful compilation of a generic
> body means little. Instantiation can always fail even if all formal
> parameters match. The compiler must look into the body not just for
> the sake of optimization and representation, but for validity of
> instantiation, just like in C++. A macro is a macro.

If the compilation of a generic succeeds, then any instantiation with
actuals matching the formal generic parameters have to succeed, no
matter what's in the implementation of the generic.

If that somehow isn't the case in the very newest version of the
standard, then the ARG has messed up, and I doubt that.

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
"Lots of information, strong cast, but a bit weak on the narrative."
              -- Pratchet, Stewart & Cohen reviews a phone directory