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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,103b407e8b68350b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-17 08:28:47 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-038-248.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Anybody in US using ADA ? One silly idea..
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:28:09 +0100
Organization: At home
Message-ID: <b09av4$n7ro0$3@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
References: <mailman.1041817083.31051.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <avc2tk$e3qv9$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <1041908422.928308@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <kegl1vsa5tjnkuo04ckgt78b3lsn5j0ium@4ax.com>
 <1041997309.165001@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <avh8fs$fni6s$2@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <1042086217.253468@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <avmj4i$gh335$2@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <1042477504.547640@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <b044a1$l4p22$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <1042651417.215661@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <b06t3p$m4h27$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de> <3E2780AB.23BDD226@adaworks.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-038-248.arcor-ip.net (145.254.38.248)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042820926 24375040 145.254.38.248 (16 [77047])
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:33139
Date: 2003-01-17T17:28:09+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Richard Riehle wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote:
> 
>> They are not, up to some limit. But the problem is whether the language
>> gives you an opportunity to define new numeric types without the
>> restrictions you do not need and close enough to the theoretical
>> performance limit for the remaining restrictions. Ada almost can this.
>> [Almost, because one cannot make a private type "numeric" for the
>> compiler.]
> 
> In fact, I have a generic package, for creating generic formal package
> parameters that looks like this:
> 
>          generic
>              type Item is private;
>              with function "+" (L, R : Item) return Item is <>;
>              with function "-" (L, R : Item) return Item is <>;
>              with function "*" (L, R : Item) return Item is <>;
>              with function "/" (L, R : Item) return Item is <>;
>              with function "=" (L, R : Item) return Boolean is <>;
>              with function "<" (L, R : Item) return Boolean is <>;
>              with function ">" (L, R : Item) return Boolean is <>;
>              with function "<=" (L, R : Item) return Boolean is <>;
>              with function ">=" (L, R : Item) return Boolean is <>;
>              with function Zero_Equivalent return Item;
>              -- with some additional generic formal subprogram parameters
>        package Generic_Operators is end Generic_Operators;
> 
> This can be used in some other package as a generic formal package
> parameter.
> 
>       generic
>           with package Operators is new Generic_Operators<>;
>       package Generic_Statistics is
> 
>           -- Any data type here
> 
>      end Generic_Statistics;
> 
> I published an article with the details for this in an old issue of
> Ada Letters.

BTW, did you compare

generic
   with package Operators is new Generic_Operators <>;
package Generic_Statistics is ...

with a child package variant:

generic
package Generic_Operators.Generic_Statistics is ...

It would be interesting to do it in depth.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de