Re: Announce: Grace project site operational

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

The only way I know of doing it is: "type Some_Type is range <> ;" It sure
would be handy to be able to say "Unless otherwise directed, make it
Natural..." in which case there is no problem. You get Natural unless you
need it to be something else. (Actually, I'd like to be able to have generic
parameters that let you imply that the actual was going to be ordinal or
scalar so you could assume it would have relational operators or
mathematical operators and thus not have to bring in all the operators or
have separate packages for things like floating point, fixed point, decimal,
integer, modular, enumerated... But that's another complaint. :-)

My reason for not wanting to parameterize that aspect is that you then have
to ask "Where do we stop?" Couldn't there be all sorts of other aspects of
the package that might possibly benefit from having special types? Maybe not
with lists, but then you've got maps and whatever else comes along next.
Once you let the toothpaste out of the tube, its awful hard to get it back
in.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:w1dYrjaH4ynM@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> Is there no way a generic type parameter can have a default value ?