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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,73036d0217be91e2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Inheritance versus Generics
Date: 1997/04/25
Message-ID: <dewar.862005625@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237418539
References: <33601924.774@flash.net> <dewar.861973462@merv>
 <5jql3p$p9p@top.mitre.org>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Michael said

<<May I add that the same functionality would have been achieved had packages
been either first class (makable into arrays) or second class (passable
as generic parameters) objects.>>

I assume you are aware of all the subtle semantic problems in doing this.
This is an issue that has been discussed very extensively during the
design process, and the issues are well known and well understood, and
the consensus was that package types are simply too much additional 
complexity ...