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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.140.227.9 with SMTP id x9mr12200730qhb.19.1465200854430;
        Mon, 06 Jun 2016 01:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.157.6.39 with SMTP id 36mr137808otn.14.1465200854383; Mon,
 06 Jun 2016 01:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!q32no4238424qgq.0!news-out.google.com!107ni299qgx.1!nntp.google.com!p34no3218694qgp.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 01:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <nisq18$tpe$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=194.98.77.127;
 posting-account=6yLzewoAAABoisbSsCJH1SPMc9UrfXBH
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.98.77.127
References: <niq90k$u7l$1@dont-email.me> <wccshwvgr8n.fsf@TheWorld.com>
 <niqf9v$1nn$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <niroh2$43q$1@dont-email.me>
 <c77d48b5-0f63-4adb-8403-78aaf2558bee@googlegroups.com>
 <nisq18$tpe$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <fe0d3b8d-0849-42ff-8b94-65fdff9c42ea@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Mixing operators and dot notation
From: briot.emmanuel@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 08:14:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Received-Bytes: 2030
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4138594828
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30632
Date: 2016-06-06T01:14:14-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> My solution used a base generic as formal for all subsequent formals, 
> and it was the first time I saw the need for that, so it was quite engaging.

it is indeed a powerful approach.
The Ada standard calls them signature packages, other languages sometimes
call them traits. D calls them policy-based containers, I think.


We are working on a containers library using this, so that algorithms, for instance,
can be made independent of containers, and that users can configure a lot of the
behavior of containers (checks or not, bounded or not, definite or indefine
elements) by the proper usage of formal package parameters.
See https://github.com/AdaCore/ada-traits-containers if you want more info.

Look at the docs for some of the rationales behind the current design choices.