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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,198c6302c4a0b0d7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-19 11:38:29 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Mark Lundquist" <no.spam@getalife.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <3c1dc786@pull.gecm.com> <1008601517.470745@edh3>
 <1008626816.690418@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <1008690461.380980@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <c1KT7.543$DR.227521653@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.40.0112181924260.32168-100000@bpr.best.vwh.net>
 <_xRT7.4398$xl6.682759@rwcrnsc54>
 <Pine.BSF.4.40.0112190135400.32168-100000@bpr.best.vwh.net>
 <_T4U7.8960$xl6.990924@rwcrnsc54>
 <jG5U7.24823$Yq5.2595738@news20.bellglobal.com>
Subject: Re: was Re: Ada / C++ comparison paper anymore
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <V06U7.9376$xl6.1002639@rwcrnsc54>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:38:29 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.213
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1008790709 204.127.202.213 (Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:38:29 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:38:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18113
Date: 2001-12-19T19:38:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Patrick Hohmeyer" <pi3_1415926536@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:jG5U7.24823$Yq5.2595738@news20.bellglobal.com...

>
> I consider it one of Ada's greatest *strength* that there is no
> auto-instantiation.
>
> Because you can write :
>
> type T1 is //whatever
> type T2 is new T1;
>
> procedure P1 is new P_Base(T1); //P_Base is generic
>
> now T1 and T2 have the same content, but different behavior.
> And you can be sure that the P1 procedure cant be called
> with a T2 variable as parameter.

No, but if I want to write

    procedure P2 is new P_Base (T2);

I can certainly do that, right?  And while P1 is primitive to T1 and P2 is
not necessarily primitive to T2 (depending on the scope of the
instantiation), an implicit instantiation is obviously not primitive either.
I'm not seeing how my scheme weakens anything at all...  It just results in
a lighter syntax.  Can you please be more specific about *exactly* what
problems you see it causing, and how?  I would be genuinely interested to
know...

-- mark