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: fac41,39771953fe5b2343
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,39771953fe5b2343
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,39771953fe5b2343
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: New copying license for classes/modules: CGPL
Date: 1997/09/17
Message-ID: <dewar.874545696@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 273432373
References: <341A7F0E.66E46566@cistron.nl> <dewar.874242039@merv>
 <341EABAB.41C67EA6@eiffel.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bertrand said

<<As far as I understand the discussion, the problem will not
arise for Eiffel. The language is designed so that the code of
generic classes need not be duplicated for different
"generic derivations" of the same generic class
(i.e. different types obtained by providing different generic
parameters, as in LIST [BOAT] and LIST [PERSON]).
Our implementation, and I believe others too, indeed do not
duplicate the code in such cases. Nor is there any need to
"copy the code into your program".>>

Right, this kind of genericity is easily achieved with shared code. Of course
Ada genericity is quite a bit more extensive, and for example, even in the
simple case of a generic instantiated with two different floating-point
precisions, the only path to efficient code is duplication.

This is ONLY an efficiency issue, there is nothing in Ada which requires
code duplication. Some compilers use macro substitution always, some use
shared code always, some pick and choose, are the user can control which.