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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4200259190b16e16
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-01 00:55:01 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Visibility problems with package instantiations.....
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:58:47 +0100
Message-ID: <b9vlsvgtq4mno30llumrfs7up8dv10hg9e@4ax.com>
References: <95234e08.0311270742.631b1228@posting.google.com>
 <349csv0udb5k0kuk0q99d7tm7fh5leuefu@4ax.com>
 <95234e08.0311280323.7a5bb870@posting.google.com>
 <n8hesvkm0cad6p3sbvkrahbuiv9ap61gr0@4ax.com>
 <95234e08.0311302345.4f9e235b@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.116)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1070268900 68798774 212.79.194.116 ([77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3047
Date: 2003-12-01T09:58:47+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 30 Nov 2003 23:45:51 -0800, petter.fryklund@atero.se (Petter
Fryklund) wrote:

>Well 200 parameters was an overstatement trying to make a point. What
>I'm doing now is moving a way from child packages partly because when
>you reach level four,

In my present project I have dived down 5 levels of depth! (:-))

> the filenames becomes awfully long.

Egh, that should be no problem, if you aren't under MS-DOS.

But if you are eager to save keystrokes typing Ada code, then use
package renaming:

package ABCDEF renames A.B.C.D.E.F;

>And also,
>with two possible parents, which one should be choosen?

Both! However, unfortunately, Ada supports neither multiple parents
nor multiple inheritance. They are related things.

>Our CM policy
>also dictates a directory structure with every unit in it's own branch
>leading to a large tree.

It is a reasonable policy.

>So I'm now using the chain-saw strategy with
>generics. (I finally found a reasonable usage of unchecked conversion
>at level four.)

There are very limited number of cases where use of
Unchecked_Conversion could be reasonable. (:-))

>I still think that it would be nice to have a "box" syntax for
>parameters that aren't relevant.

If you are going to make an AI on generics and send it to ARG, then
add there
 
1. defaults for generic parameters;
2. a way to resolve conflicts in generic parameter names;
3. matching the actuals of generic subroutine with omitted default
parameters [It might be backward incompatible, as Christoph Grein
pointed];
4. generic formal dispatching subroutines;
5. generic dispatching subroutines;
. . .
666. automatic instantiations;
. . .
n. user-defined generic types

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de