Re: default formal parameters in generic declarations

[Eric Hughes <eric.eh9@gmail.com>]

Eric Hughes <eric....@gmail.com> writes:
> Formal
> objects and subprograms can have default values.  Formal types and
> packages cannot.  Could someone point me to the discussion where this
> inconsistency was decided to be a good thing?

On Mar 2, 10:42 am, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
wrote:
> It is not a good thing.

The absence of this expression is not a good thing, but my question
was more about the tradeoffs, not in the language itself, but in the
whole context of the creation of the language.  Was it considered too
late to be understood?  Were there too many prerequisites?  Was not a
high enough priority?  _On balance_ it must have been a good thing,
because it didn't happen.  I am assuming it was considered.