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: 103376,88b676af04f3073d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada generics are bad
Date: 1998/04/11
Message-ID: <dewar.892345837@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 343219816
References: <Er3npt.4sK@array.ca> <6gm6jc$fbp@newshub.atmnet.net>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 892346222 9719 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Chris Green says

<<With "function form" generics, updating and recompiling the generic body
does not obsolete units that instantiate it or depend on instantiations,
and it is possible to deliver libraries that include only object code
for such bodies (this is a key concern for developers of commercial Ada
software such as ourselves, who are wary of releasing more source code
than we absolutely have to).
>>

Very often an approach that works well is to isolate the "generic" parts
of the body, and use common code for the non-generic parts. Look at the
GNAT code for an example of how this is done, in particular, look at
the code for Float_IO. Almost nothing of interest is in the generic itself,
all the "good stuff" is in the common units.

This could be used to "solve" the "problem" of releasing more source code
than you absolutely have to, although from a users point of view, using
libraries where you do not have the source and do not know what is going
on seems pretty dubious. I suppose if the only option you have is to use
closed software of this kind, then the risk may be acceptable.