From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 15 Oct 92 08:50:54 GMT
From: darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!uknet!
mucs!m1!bevan@gatech.edu  (Stephen J Bevan)
Subject: Re: Generic Instantiation as Subprogram Body?
Message-ID: <BEVAN.92Oct15095054@hippo.cs.man.ac.uk>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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