Re: default formal parameters in generic declarations

[Eric Hughes <eric.eh9@gmail.com>]

Eric Hughes <eric....@gmail.com> writes:
> The problem arises because, in general, an aspect _ought_ to
> have access to the internal state of the package for which it is
> acting as an aspect.

On Mar 5, 6:11 am, Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org>
wrote:
> Right. That's one reason I don't think aspect-based programming is all
> that useful.

I myself find the claims for the utility of AOP a bit overblown.  It
is, however, very good for observational applications: logging,
monitoring, defect correction, etc.  These are essentially "read only"
ways of using the internal state of an object.  In the general case,
getting anything correct seems hard enough, much less making anything
generically useful.  I remain

I should also say that one of the main reasons I did this was that
envisioned four different use cases: a zero-overhead case for ordinary
usage, a logging case for tracking down problems, an performance-
tuning case at the initial phase of deployment, and the unit testing
case.  Getting zero-overhead meant using an aspect that could compile
down into nothing when needed.

[re: circular generic references]
> Did you find a similar mechanism in Ada yet? Does limited with help?

I'm working on it.  I am certain to use "limited with", yes.  I
suspect that construct is necessary, but I cannot make the argument
one way or the other as yet.

Eric