Re: Generics question

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com>]

On 24 Jul 1997, Michael F Brenner wrote:
>     > To do a general numerical algorithm like you describe the Ada 95 idiom is:
>     >   generic
>     >   type Numeric_Type is private;
>     >   with function "+" (X,Y : Numeric_Type) return Numeric_Type is <>;
>     >   with function "-" (X,Y : Numeric_Type) return Numeric_Type is <>;
>     >   with function "*" (X,Y : Numeric_Type) return Numeric_Type is <>;
>     >   ... etc ...
>     >   package Numerics is
> 
> The etc is not too bad in an unnested generic package, but there is no limit
> to how big it can get in nested packages, which is why Ada-200X should
> consider passing packages to packages.

I don't understand. Ada 95 allows you to pass an instantiation of the
package Numerics to another generic package. The "etc" has to be done
because Ada generics must be explicitly instantiated. Could you describe 
your proposal, in "pseudo-Ada", and show how it helps with this problem?

I think that generic package parameters are pretty powerful, especially 
in combination with those signature packages. 

-- Brian