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,b7dc7082d345b1e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: package dependence question
Date: 2000/05/30
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005301213050.16745-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 629131138
References: <8gt19i$1cm8@r02n01.cac.psu.edu> <wccog5o809g.fsf@world.std.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 959714093 213 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 30 May 2000, Robert A Duff wrote:
> Carl Banks <oaf@psu.edu> writes:
> 
> > My question is, is there a better way to define such a doubly-
> > traversible tree, so that different node types need not be defined in
> > the same package?
> 
> There is no ideal solution to this problem in Ada 95 (although the ARG
> is currently working on a language modification that will solve the
> problem nicely).

Would you be willing to elaborate further? Is this a variant of Tucker
Taft's "with type" proposal from a few years back?

-- Brian