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: 1997/05/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 238689259 References: <33601924.774@flash.net> <5jql3p$p9p@top.mitre.org> <3365EF16.443C@elca-matrix.ch> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mats said, replying to me <<> 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 ... I have done some extensive work on that topic (package types as classes), and I disagree. You can find my proposal at >>> I think your language is a little imprecise here, I think you are saying that you disagree with the consensus, not that anything I said is wrong (this issue WAS debated extensively -- extensively enough that I certainly don't feel like any more technical talk on it :-) -- and there was a consensus that it was a bad idea. Sure there is a small (very noisy :-) minority that disagreed, but it was a very small minority (the notable member of this minority was Tony Luckham, if you want to track down a kindred spirit on this issue). (and of course there was the Intel compiler ...)