Re: Generic Instantiation as Subprogram Body?

[darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!uknet! mucs!m1!bevan@gatech.edu (Stephen J Bevan)]

In article <11225@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> beidler@guinness.cs.uofs.edu (Jack Be
idler) writes:
   Since "<=" is equivalent to "not >" and ">=" is equivalent to "not <"
   the package spec should be

	generic
	   type T is range <>;
	package P is
	   type U is private;
	   function "<" (l,r : U) return boolean;
	   function ">" (l,r : U) return boolean;
	private
	    . . .

   Is it "Stoopid machine!" or  "Stoopid _____!"

If you want to reduce it to its minimum: "a < b" is equivalent to "b >
a" the package spec should be :-

  generic
    type T is range <>;
  package PARTIAL_ORDER
    type U is private;
    function "<" (l,r:U) return boolean;
  private
    ....
  end

As to what/who is stupid, I'll leave that for others to decide :-)

bevan