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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,43f6bd9b498b66d0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Eric Hughes <eric.eh9@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: default formal parameters in generic declarations
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <a520f018-097c-406b-a3e3-387a28d38216@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <9b3bac4d-5ae1-4a1b-a81e-9aa9ae1843e0@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
	<wccskz93tv5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.70.57.218
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1204486838 19784 127.0.0.1 (2 Mar 2008 19:40:38
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:40:38 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=166.70.57.218;
	posting-account=5RIiTwoAAACt_Eu87gmPAJMoMTeMz-rn
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.12)
	Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20168
Date: 2008-03-02T11:40:38-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.