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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,91cc2b2a631886b8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Generic Packages
Date: 1998/08/11
Message-ID: <EACHUS.98Aug11110337@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 380070670
References: <35CF1129.4DCB0B15@lmco.com>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <35CF1129.4DCB0B15@lmco.com> Tory Patnoe <tory.l.patnoe@lmco.com> writes:

> Does the compiler make TWO separate instantiations of int_io in this
> case?   It would, therefore, make my code larger and take more 
> time at elaboration?  I suspect this is the case and consequently it
> would be better to do something like this. 

>   package int_io is new integer_io; use int_io;

    Normally the overhead for elaborating a generic instantiation is
trivial, on the order of a procedure call and a few assignments.
However, it is worth noting that combining instances like this can
have semantic effects.  Integer_IO has two variables, Default_Base and
Default_Width that can be set by user, but hardly ever are.  (In fact
they probably account for two of those assignments during
instantiation.)
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...