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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS,PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.107.107.2 with SMTP id g2mr6707827ioc.43.1523635065829;
        Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2281:: with SMTP id y1-v6mr278963ota.14.1523635065462;
 Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!maths.tcd.ie!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!168.235.88.217.MISMATCH!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!e130-v6no565961itb.0!news-out.google.com!15-v6ni614itg.0!nntp.google.com!k65-v6no576979ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c5ca4f5c-65db-4e6c-bfc1-15dc903a380b@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=85.240.215.178;
 posting-account=rhqvKAoAAABpikMmPHJSZh4400BboHwT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.240.215.178
References: <115d2e72-2b30-4ec0-b42f-52e9df2905d4@googlegroups.com>
 <f6b52822-3cdb-4dec-b5ea-0a3e49f845e2@googlegroups.com>
 <aeb87b8c-a777-4417-ba9a-af9beeda281f@googlegroups.com>
 <e0a89dde-ed5f-4814-b7f9-73ecd0c6d466@googlegroups.com>
 <c5ca4f5c-65db-4e6c-bfc1-15dc903a380b@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b4157ddb-9783-4b64-a165-1f7af26aee9f@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: no, it can't be,
 there's no "with procedure instance_of_generic_procedure
 is new generic_procedure;" ? Impossible !
From: Mehdi Saada <00120260a@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 15:57:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2183
X-Received-Body-CRC: 837660762
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51474
Date: 2018-04-13T08:57:45-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I shall add that removing that rule of "all or none" is necessary ( possibl=
e or not :-) ) because,
considering GP1 which needs GP2:
generic
   type T1 is private
   with package P2 is new GP2(T1...)
package GP1... end GP1;

some parameters of GP2 use or concern T1 (are logically related to T1), but=
 some others, might they have defaults or not, might be used for parts of G=
P2 totally unrelated to T1. This fact is already expressed in contracts (no=
t sure the term is right, I mean "everything between "generic" and "package=
 generic_package_name is ..."), so I don't think a priori it would entail m=
ore checks for formal parameters coherence.

Hope I didn't spout rubbishes.