Re: (elementary question) Test on type ?

["Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>]

Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:fwql7.4754$4z.14897@www.newsranger.com...
> Hack 2: Make the user supply the non-common code themselves as a procedure
> parameter. (works well if the non-common stuff can be put together, and it
> doesn't rely on package-internal stuff, and you can trust the clients to
get
> this code right. Not so good if its stuff the clients shouldn't have to
worry
> about doing themselves.
>

You can refine this using a layerd design, so that the client is shielded
from the internal details, by adding a top layer that uses the generic, and
defines the required subprogram parameters . In some cases child units may
come in handy (if you must rely on internal deails).

Ehud Lamm